Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Extends XP To May 2009 For OEMs

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the that-pesky-reality-again dept.

Windows 605

beuges writes "Microsoft has announced over the weekend that it would allow computer manufacturers to receive copies of XP until the end of May 2009, shortly before Windows 7 is expected to hit the market. This should allow users to skip Vista entirely and move straight to 7, which has been receiving cautiously favorable reviews of pre-release and leaked alphas."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Windows 7 (-1, Troll)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26211971)

More like Windows ME 2, do they really think people will buy it when they haven't sorted out the problems with vista.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212029)

Unfortunately, yes, people will buy it, especially businesses which have held off the Vista upgrade cycle. That is why XP is still around. Just think what would happen if MS just dumped XP and FORCE-FED Vista on Business. Lots of work (evaluation for business usage) would go into alternatives, something MS does not want to see happen.

you're still buying vista even if you skip it (4, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212335)

I wonder if they will let you buy the windows 7 upgrade for xp though? Or will you have to buy the full retail for 7, in which case they've as good as sold you a vista upgrade (plus a windows 7 upgrade) even though you didn't want anything to do with vista?

I personally find it hilarious that they keep extending xp as the consumer mass keeps threatening to make a "true" upgrade to another os...

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212083)

The optimistic view would be that Vista is more like Windows ME, which would make Windows 7 more like XP. If that's the case, maybe Windows 7 will actually be fairly stable and we can try to pretend Vista never happened, sort of like how we try to forget Windows ME.

Re:Windows 7 (3, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212325)

The optimistic view would be that Vista is more like Windows ME, which would make Windows 7 more like XP. If that's the case, maybe Windows 7 will actually be fairly stable and we can try to pretend Vista never happened, sort of like how we try to forget Windows ME.

Win ME is not nearly half as disastrous as most people will tell you, provided that you configure it correctly. Most of the out-of-the-box default settings glitchy at best and system crashing at worst, though going menu by menu and rearranging everything manually will fix most of its glaring problems (notably the RAM management and ballooning system restore folder). I've had Win ME installed on a system at home since 2001 and it's been running as close as it will get to flawlessly. When I mention how it will leap through hoops of fire if I ask it nicely, however, people always seem to recoil in fear and reach for their bible and holy water...

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212433)

It goes to show, you can even make a turd smell like a rose with enough time and effort tweaking it.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212525)

If I wanted to go through my system and customize all the settings manually, I'd install Linux. In a Windows OS, given its target market, having to go through it "menu by menu" and reconfigure it is disastrous.

In fact, as I recall, when WinME was out I did have Linux installed, and the default settings were mostly good enough, with only some tweaking required for one or two components (I think the audio cards weren't supported properly then). Clearly, ME was (for most users) a disaster.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212573)

The main problem with ME wasn't that it was crap. (It *was* crap and you do need to configure the hell out of it to make it acceptable, but that's true for every Microsoft operating system.)
The problem with ME was that it was Windows 98 in disguise, with all the limitations of Windows 98 and perfume thrown on it just to make it look new. No matter how much they tried to hide it, Windows 95/98/ME were just graphical shells running on DOS.

Re:Windows 7 (1, Redundant)

johny42 (1087173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212329)

It seems to me that we are actually quite fond of remembering Windows ME here on Slashdot.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Insightful)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212349)

The change from Vista to 7 is more like 2000 to XP. There is very little being changed under the hood. For example (assuming version numbers still mean anything at MS) the kernel is going from 6.0 to 6.1. 2000 was kernel 5.0 and XP was 5.1. XP 64 and 2003 are kernel version 5.2.

All that aside, I'm trying to be optimistic that 7 will be what Vista promised to be.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212389)

sort of like how we try to forget Windows ME.

Not on slashdot pal, it's in the Hall of Shame along with MS Bob forever.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

Yunzil (181064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212545)

If that's the case, maybe Windows 7 will actually be fairly stable and we can try to pretend Vista never happened

Except Vista already is stable. Maybe it's because I only use my PC for games and the Internet, but Vista (SP1) has been nearly flawless.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212089)

More like Windows ME 2, do they really think people will buy it when they haven't sorted out the problems with vista.

Do you actually use Vista? Or is this typical ignorant slashdot drivel? I use Vista at home, I use Vista at work. I have had absolutely no issue with it. Let me qualify this by saying until a couple months ago I also used OS X 10.4 at home, and I also currently dual boot into Ubuntu. Vista has been far more stable than both of these, and the support is no contest.

Now let me ask again, do you actually *use* Vista? Or are you regurgitating tired old perceptions because of a fanboyish allegiance to a free operating system?

Bullseye! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212149)

not already in use, you made my day by talking the inconvenient truth. Thank you. :)

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

222 (551054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212157)

My gripes about it are typically more about unneeded UI changes which hurt usability. For example, what the hell was the justification for renaming "Add / Remove Programs" to "Programs and Features"? I've been a Windows user for over 15 years... there is no reason in hell I should spend 30 seconds scanning the Control Panel for a single icon.

This may sound like a petty rant, but I run across issues like this *all* the time! The mass storage driver is also flaky for my motherboard (I can't use any mass storage devices!) but that's more Asus's fault than MS.

All in all, Vista isn't terrible, and definitely usable but suffers from some very poor design decisions.

Re:Windows 7 (3, Insightful)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212267)

Well, sometimes you need to make changes to the UI that would be more friendly to new users, even if it might confuse old users for a little bit. Yeah, the Programs and Features was a pain in the ass, but after the first couple of times, I don't even think about it (and I still use XP at work).

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212307)

My gripes about it are typically more about unneeded UI changes which hurt usability.

But what about KDE? Dude, they scrapped a desktop that was popular, flexible, and working. KDE 3.5 was already better than even Vista's shell in some ways, as is gnomes. You can do a lot with the doc bars/task bars, and in KDE you could change even the clock type to one of 40 different types, and instead of just polishing that up, they went and junked it.

Unbelievable! Really, what was in KDE 3.5 that was so terrible that the whole thing needed to be junked, from an end user perspective. Plasma might wind up being cool, but its gonna need some time to gel up a bit. And, in the meantime, I'd like gnome to just do -something-.

And, along the way, I've actually got Vista growing on me. The only thing I really don't like about it is that the start bar doesn't have "run" on it the way XP does, but other than that, Vista is better.

As bad as Vista might be to some people, Microsoft won this round, again. This time, it was because while MS made mistakes with Vista, the KDE and Gnome teams made some big ones too.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212347)

You can actually run stuff from the search bar, and at the same time it will search ahead for what you are typing...actually my favorite feature in Vista and something I actually miss when in XP.

On my Vista box at home I don't even go into Programs anymore, just start typing Far and it brings up Far Cry, Far Cry 2 etc...good stuff.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212547)

yeah, I second that - it is good once you've gotten used to it. Its a bitch if you don't have the search service running all the time though, it can lose installed apps and then you're bu**ered. In fact, I'd get rid of the list of installed apps as it seems to be pretty rubbish, no hierarchy or fly-out menus, just a simplified explorer listview in a not-intuitive default sort order.

If you do have the search service running, performance can be a bit awkward and your electricity bill is quite higher as the disk seems to grind away all the damn time, unless its one of the other 200 scheduled tasks they have in there.

In fact, that's my biggest issue with Vista - its way too complex now. Take a look at the scheduled tasks and see just what's in there! Take a look in your even log and see how many entries you get on boot, compare that to NT4. Take a look at the WinSxS directory and see how many Gb it takes up. (7Gb on my Vista box at the mo)

Oh and explorer is just pants for simple performance and responsiveness. As is Task Manager - which is pretty, but just a monitoring tool now, not the 'emergency' system button it used to be.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212339)

The justification? simple.

To require all MCSE's to re certify. Oh and to get the millions of employees using windows out there to take new training courses in windows. The test users here we switched to Vista were non productive for 1 week. WORSE than the linux trials we did last year, and they required more training.

that is the ONLY reason they pull that crap.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212415)

For example, what the hell was the justification for renaming "Add / Remove Programs" to "Programs and Features"?

The rationale is that there are chunks of Windows (such as every individual thing Windows Update has downloaded) in that list too. Those are features of Windows, not standalone programs, hence the name.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212457)

All in all, Vista isn't terrible, and definitely usable but suffers from some very poor design decisions.

A couple remarks about this...

First, I do agree that Vista changed a lot of stuff (such as the renaming of things that people were familiar with). However, this does not signify bad usability design decisions, per se. It's just a change that you are not familiar with.

Secondly, many of the usability changes in Vista are excellent. For example, the ability to search your Start menu, rather than having to use the mouse and look around for a program you want to launch is probably the best change from a usability perspective. The ability to "click" through folders in the address bar is also a very nice upgrade to usability (although, I will admit that it took me a little bit to become used to it, given the change from XP).

Whether or not some of these changes were needed or not, I don't know. I wasn't part of the usability studies (and, unless you were, you can't really speak to whether the changes were necessary). But, there are times that change is definitely good, despite most people wanting to avoid it. For example, Apple redid their entire interface (pretty much) with the release of OSX. Was it needed? Maybe. Maybe not. Did it help them a lot in the long run? Definitely.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Yunzil (181064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212571)

For example, what the hell was the justification for renaming "Add / Remove Programs" to "Programs and Features"?

Possibly because no one has ever used "Add/Remove Programs" to actually add a program.

Re:Windows 7 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212173)

Well, I don't use Vista, but here's my story:

I dropped a brown rope this morning the size of a small black child. At one point, I wasn't sure if I was taking a shit, or it the shit was taking me. And while I'm on that point, what's the deal with taking a shit? Shouldn't it be leaving a shit? I'm certainly not taking anything with me when I'm done.

Anyway, back on topic, Vista sucks ass.

Vista is just ok (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212177)

I would disagree with you. I dual-boot Ubuntu 8.10 and Vista Ultimate 64bit at home, and I don't think either has an edge when it comes to stability. It's really hard to make that judgment, since in the three months or so I've had them, neither has crashed even once.

For me, Vista has certainly been more stable than WindowsXP, though. It's interesting though, that Ubuntu 8.10 was just as much of a stability improvement, compared to previous versions of Ubuntu.

I think Vista has a really bad rap, which may or may not be justified, and is probably largely reliant on the performance of the pre-SP1 32-bit version, which (even in my experience) was pretty atrocious.

But at the moment, Vista works just fine for me... and it's certainly worth the $66 I paid for the student version, which I consider a fair price. I certainly don't think I am somehow entitled to receiving good software for free (which is why I donate to various OSS projects, including Ubuntu).

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212191)

I have UAC and sidebar disabled in Vista, classic 9x start menu... and I can't understand what everyone's problem with it is.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212205)

I installed over 3000 copies of vista at a local OEM over my summer break. You wouldn't believe the shit I've seen. Integrated ethernet cards only being recognized every other boot, 15 minute startups, reboots required for every other damn driver install, random "could not connect to authentication server"s...

Yeah, I'ved used vista...

Re:Windows 7 (0, Troll)

lyml (1200795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212269)

You'd think that after install 3/3000 you would have fixed an install for that particular configuration.

But more likely you're full of shit.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212443)

Or more likely it was 3000 installs, but about 100 different configurations. We specialized in building and configuring machines for local school districts.

That's irrelevant though, my point is, we were CLONING good installs onto identical hardware and were experiencing all manner of rarely reproducible errors.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212461)

Or at least imaged one drive to another and change the activation number.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212531)

You don't read very well do you...

Re:Windows 7 (4, Insightful)

thetroll123 (744259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212221)

Oh yeah, it's fine. As long as your usage pattern doesn't involve anything intricate like copying files...

I like Vista a lot actually. (2, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212223)

I have both Ubuntu and Vista and I prefer dual booting into Vista... I actually like the apps more on Ubuntu (kdevelop/bash), but, Vista's start bar, control panel, and user interface just nails it for me. Makes ubuntu feel old fashioned.

Unix people can complain about Vista as much as the want, but the fact is, they screwed up as bad as MS did. Microsoft doesn't hand out opportunities to attack its desktop and certainly with some of the bad Vista buzz, they did. But, the linux community blew it.

Gnome is moving at a glacial pace, and KDE is in no man's land. It's almost like, had KDE either finished 4 or just polished 3.x, or Gnome just moved more quickly, either could have had a real Vista killer, but, both missed.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212229)

More like Windows ME 2, do they really think people will buy it when they haven't sorted out the problems with vista.

Do you actually use Vista? Or is this typical ignorant slashdot drivel? I use Vista at home, I use Vista at work. I have had absolutely no issue with it. Let me qualify this by saying until a couple months ago I also used OS X 10.4 at home, and I also currently dual boot into Ubuntu. Vista has been far more stable than both of these, and the support is no contest. Now let me ask again, do you actually *use* Vista? Or are you regurgitating tired old perceptions because of a fanboyish allegiance to a free operating system?

I've USED Vista and I've supported Vista. It has nasty security holes, upgrades from apps like anti-virus programs can easily make it unbootable (McAffee I'm looking at you), and it requires at least twice the hardware requirements of XP. Those are the least of the problems it has.

I am still recommending people stick with XP if they have it or buying a Mac if they are buying a new system.

You are the exception and not the rule. For most people Vista just doesn't work.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212365)

Are are you the exception? A grand generalizer anyways.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212395)

Oh the booting thing pissed me off too.

Won't boot from a partition that's not aligned exactly to some arbitrary point it decides on. Just great.

I'm used to having OSs (XP, linux) that I can shuffle around my hard disk using gparted as and when I feel like I want to change things. Vista wouldn't boot after I moved its partition. WTF?

Re:Windows 7 (2, Interesting)

rolfc (842110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212273)

I have been using vista since shortly before it was released and I am not very happy about it. I am one of few that think that UAC is a good idea, but it is a bad implementation. I am tired of waiting for vista when it goes grey, and I do not think it is better than XP. It is not anything that you want to pay a lot of money for, when you already have XP. From what I hear Windows 7 is not going to be any better. All our sysadmins has moved to Linux, our servers are moving to Linux, and when our users are ready, they will go to Linux as well. ;)

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212275)

I have to second this. My PC at home is running Fedora 10, Vista, XP and OS X (ssh...don't tell anyone)

I've long used Vista as my day to day OS and still actually like using it. Fedora is taking over atm but still has issues that I am struggling to work around (4 monitor support for one).

XP really does feel like a downgrade from Vista and productivity is hit, it is for me anyway. I actually use XP to segregate my "games" environment away from my work environment. having a Performance edition of XP that uses ~70MB RAM on start helps with games as well.

I can forgive OS X for being a little unstable as it is a heavily hacked and poked install nowadays. But I havn't yet found a reason to favor it over Fedora or Vista.

All in all I am happy with Vista and don't really see what peoples problem with it is.

**ducks before the rocks come 'a flying**

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212277)

Yes, and I've suffered from regular crashes on software (MATLAB and others) that works just fine in Windows XP - default installation and configurations. This sort of thing is pretty darn important for my job, so it's a deal-breaker. These aren't special Vista builds, either, just stuff that should work that simply doesn't.
 
Oh, and I use XP+OpenSUSE+Gentoo at home, and XP at work, and my Vista trials had by far the worst stability of them all for my applications.
 
So let me ask you - what's wrong with wanting something that WORKS and doesn't give me constant crashes and grief? I understand the OP complained in generalities about other people, but I just want my stuff to work. Since you're so enamored by Vista and its stability, give me your magic fixes.

Re:Windows 7 (2, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212289)

At my office we have Vista, XP, OS X, and Linux. Anyone can use whatever OS they prefer, but all are needed for testing. All but one person uses OS X on their desktop. One uses Linux. No one uses Vista because no one likes it.

The desktops we have set up for testing with Vista are nothing but trouble from the second you sit down. Many things need to be constantly installed to get anything done; things that come native with OS X and Linux. Distracting windows and notifications pop up constantly requiring extra clicks. Debugging JavaScript is a breeze in Firefox but a nightmare with IE7. I could go on...

Your experience may be positive. But don't assume that everyone who complains about Vista is lying.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212309)

Yes, I use Vista. It came pre-installed on my laptop.

I don't like it. The interface has changed in annoying ways, like that program browser thing built into the start menu popup? Horrible! What the HELL were they thinking?

UAC is a TOTAL pain in the arse. Apparently some imaginary sysadmin is denying me the rights to do anything useful or have things I want run at startup. It helpfully (possibly even proudly) announces that it's stopped my ext2 driver from running due to a system policy. If anyone can find where the HELL you edit said policy...

And that's not to mention the pain of the user-specific virtual "program files" store. Intense, intense suckage.

With UAC turned off, it behaves ok, but, what exactly is the benefit of moving to Vista from XP? DX10? Bloat? Teh Shiny?

I use debian as my primary OS, don't talk me about your stability.... :)

Re:Windows 7 (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212527)

How is UAC different from sudo? Why do I never hear the need to enter a password for the graphical sudo box that pops up just as often as Vista's UAC box?

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212311)

Thank you! I always seem to be the person saying this. Vista is a pretty good OS. Sure, it has it's flaws. I hate the security prompts, but to be honest, after the initial setup where I install all my programs, I barely see anything now. I've been running Vista since Beta 2, and it's been pretty smooth since RC1. I installed the retail version, and it's the first time where I've had an OS on my machine that lasted almost 2 years without being formatted.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212361)

Well, I know I do. For games only. And everytime it boots, especially after a software update, I am thankful to the chair-throwing dieties that it works again, and I can release some stress with a game as opposed to troubleshoot it.

My Vista is extremely customized. I have configured it just the way I want it, and I've trimmed it down ruthlessly. For what I need it (games), it works, and it's actually quite decent. Boots quickly too.

But the defaults that Vista comes with, which are the settings that 80+% of computer users will stick to, are horrible. It's dog slow. It's running stuff in the background that hammers the hard drive for minutes on every boot*. I don't even know what that is. In terms of usability, the defaults are fairly bad as well, in my opinion of one who has used extensively mostly everything other than MacOS.

Say what you will of Ubuntu, but it comes with sane defaults. Ones that I like with no or minimal change. I have yet to see another operating system that can say the same. That's why people who actually try it with an open mind** love it instantly.

Vista? Everyone around me hates it. They use it daily, some for days and others for a year or two, but they universally run back to XP eventually. But those people don't know anything else exists, and when I tell them, most are too scared to even consider switching for a split second.

* It's not indexing, because indexing was disabled in every way possible, and there were really no documents to index. It's gone now that I trimmed down the whole system big time, but I never found out what it was.
** As opposed to: "OMGOMG that's so not Windows. Therefore it must be shit."

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212397)

I've used Vista. The first time I used Vista, it was on a laptop and I had to set the wireless up for our house.

I went in the way I do it in XP, and set up Wireless SSID, encryption etc for the WAP and then .... nothing.

I spent almost three hours fiddling, deleting, adding, changing all the various options shown to me in the setup ... NOTHING

Some nearly three hours later, I fumbled upon something else that resembled wireless setup, and I found an whole OTHER wireless setup thing. And in one minute, I had wireless functioning.

My question is, why is the former even an option, if it doesn't work. WHY would you have a place that has all the things to make Wireless work, only to .... you know ... be utterly useless??!!!???!!!

Vista may work, and be "stable" and such, but it sucks a big one IMHO simply because it changed things it didn't need to change, legacy stuff is still around even if it doesn't work (see above), and well "Cancel or Allow".

And from what I've seen Windows 7 is actually Vista SP2. Hopefully it will have features that function when you try to use them.

Yes I USE VISTA and I HATE IT! (2, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212417)

Yikes. The paid Microsoft trolls come out yet again. Look, yes Microsoft you made some nice features in Vista and yes you made the interface look pretty and you stole the OS X ideas and all that greatness. But look you FAILED at implementation. I know it sucks because you couldn't see these failures in the development cycle because you didn't have time to actually test anything nearly enough. Here is a list of VISTA implementation FAILURES...
  • Windows Search. It is a nice feature but it is also a resource hog and the checkbox to make it only run when the computer is idle is way to hard to find
  • UAC. Yes, it really is too annoying. If I click on a program to run it I don't want the screen to blank then pop back up then ask me if I really want to run it and then finally not run it because it's not compatible with Vista. XP had a fine solution but the one in Vista sucks.
  • Backwards compatibility that is non-existent. Seriously, was "Documents and Settings" so poorly named that you had to change it to "Users"? I know programs should have used the system call to get to the correct path but most didn't. This single change broke more software then anything else.
  • Running programs only to have all trace of them disappear even from the task bar.
  • VISTA only gaming. Are you freakin' kidding me?!
  • Resource HOG. Windows should not assume that I want it to use up all the available resources. This is a dumb assumption.
  • Broken File Transfer mechanism. File transfer's took four times as long on Vista as XP when it came out. Now Vista is faster then at release but still slower then XP file transfers. It's a file transfer. Only the most basic function of the operating system. Come on Microsoft!

I could go on but for your sanity and mine I will not.

Re:Yes I USE VISTA and I HATE IT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212575)

  • UAC. Yes, it really is too annoying. If I click on a program to run it I don't want the screen to blank then pop back up then ask me if I really want to run it and then finally not run it because it's not compatible with Vista. XP had a fine solution but the one in Vista sucks.

XP had a shitty solution, any program you run can completely alter your system setup. I mean, why?

(That's not to say that UAC is good but something like it had to happen.)

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212097)

more like windows vista²

Re:Windows 7 (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212263)

Yes, because people bought windows 2000 when they did not sort out the problems with windows ME.

W2K turned out to be their Best OS ever. (Yes even now compared to XP it's still better.)

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212447)

W2K turned out to be their Best OS ever. (Yes even now compared to XP it's still better.)

Not what I've found. It's basically a tradeoff. XP sucks up more resources than 2k, but runs more stable. Choose your poison.

Re:Windows 7 (2, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212333)

What are the unsorted problems with Vista?

I mean, it's not the greatest OS in the world, but it's not horrendous. Yeah, there was the crap with the 'Vista ready' BS when it came out, but at this point, most new PCs should have no problem running it with Aero.

There were tons of driver issues when it came out too (Just like when Win 2k was new, god that was a nightmare), but again, it's been a few years and the driver support seams pretty top notch at this point.

The UAV system is annoying, but easily disabled. Hopefully they will tweak it to run more like Ubuntu where I can log in as a power user with out admin rights, but perform admin tasks by providing admin credentials when attempting the task.

Other than that, I'm pleased with the system. It's a tad more bloated than my XP build, but the hardware is a bit more beefy, so the extra memory and clock cycles are negligible and it can perform all of the tasks I normally do faster than my older PC with XP.

If Windows 7 makes iterative improvements on Vista the way 98 did to 95, then I'm all for it. I'd shell out $90 for an upgrade version next time I build a PC.

-Rick

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212387)

Never underestimate the stupidly of a consumer or the marketing people who explot that stupidity.
  They all surf as owner/administrator in XP, This makes them dependent on security software because that's the default right?
If your true to form Slashdotter you know better right? You surgf a limited user account right?
Well many consumers don't, and become the next victim of security issues .
Look at what happen with IE
Microsoft got all the Blame by the media .
That's plain wrong!
Websites had to FIRST let themselves be hackerd first BEFORE IE can get you infected and
the media never mentions that .
  It's thousands of security inept webmasters who first let the hacker in to that company or private sites that allowed IE to potentially cause our problem .
  Those who let their sits get hacked deserve just as much blame If not more. and I don't like Microsoft,but fair is fair and blaming them alone isn't fair at all.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212501)

I think the general consensus is that Vista is ME 2; Windows 7 is supposed to fix most of what was wrong with Vista. Reviewers make it sound as if this is the case, but I'll wait for it to RTM before I make any final judgments.

Hahahaaa 7 before vista isnt cold dead yet (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26211979)

unbelievable.

it would take a butt the size of mount everest for any company to take the plunge and trust anything from microsoft again, after the stunt they pulled with vista.

and what happens to the poor sods who DID trust microsoft and upgraded their entire office to vista, again ?

Re:Hahahaaa 7 before vista isnt cold dead yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212099)

and what happens to the poor sods who DID trust microsoft and upgraded their entire office to vista, again ?

Collecting unemployment checks and living in their parents basement?

Where are they going to go? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212355)

Linux frightens them and they can't get a Dell loaded with OSX. Every company I've worked for in the past decade leases their hardware from Dell. And with the Vista debacle, they'll be able to tell themselves that Windows 7 is a huge improvement and have no problem snuggling back up to Microsoft's teats for some more suckling. Oh yeah. They'll suck it and they'll like it! SUCK IT BITCHES! *ahem*

I deny being Bill Gates.

Re:Hahahaaa 7 before vista isnt cold dead yet (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212375)

No. Maybe the geek community won't "trust" MS, but then again that is not news (though plenty geeks use MS products regularly). Businesses will use WIndows 7 without any questions. Their only concern is the money spent.

Honestly, I just got windows vista 64 and 32 bit (came with my desktop and laptop). I like it. I am just annoyed that now that i got these two new pieces of software (September and October) and I will need to get a new OS. That's crap. I am not a late adopter, probably in the middle. What they should be doing is fixing Vista so it can be "lighter" and do it for free as a patch. SP1 didn't come out that long ago. (BTW SP2 is still in beta preview so I am not considering that mess)

Re:Hahahaaa 7 before vista isnt cold dead yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212465)

What they should be doing is fixing Vista so it can be "lighter" and do it for free as a patch. SP1 didn't come out that long ago. (BTW SP2 is still in beta preview so I am not considering that mess)

They *are* fixing vista. It's called Windows 7. And they're not going to release it as a patch for free, they're going to sell you the fix...like they always do.

Linux is probably my future (0, Redundant)

kanwisch (202654) | more than 5 years ago | (#26211999)

Probably too late for me. I kept a Windows box to work from home but now that I've been using a spare Linux machine am deciding I can do without. Worst case I could create a dual boot and move on from all future Microsoft products.

I guess I'm tired of the hardware rat race and given the recent issue with DRM on Spore, it would seem I will stop looking at mega-commercial games and start checking out independent shops instead.

Re:Linux is probably my future (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212183)

I'd recommend Kubuntu Linux and if you need Windows, use something like VMWare player to run a Windows VM.

Microsoft might actually care (5, Interesting)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212005)

Is anyone surprised by this? Many customers told them time after time that they didn't want vista, and that they would rather use XP. Now I'm not a fan of M$, but I can say that XP Pro SP3 is absolutly amazing and stable I really really don't feel the need to upgrade to vista when I've finally got XP tuned so well that I hardly have to do any maintenance on it.

Re:Microsoft might actually care (2, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212039)

XP is nice, and it's faster than Vista, but I'd hate to be stuck with the security holes. Not that Vista/Windows 7 (same OS, different skin) is much better.

Re:Microsoft might actually care (3, Insightful)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212589)

Windows 7 which there has only been a pre-beta release of. your signing off as copy of the last one.

Excuse me if I wait for a final or near final version before passing judgement.

I'll ignore it for the obvious hate post it is.

Re:Microsoft might actually care (5, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212189)

Exactly how I felt about Windows 2000 when XP was released...
It took two service packs for it to be decent.

whoohoooo! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212013)

woohoo!!!!!

Skip (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212015)

It's not uncommon for companies to skip OS's , so this works out great for our 40,000 users. So we can go from XP sp3 direct to Win7 , but we will probably wait for SP1 of Win7.

No consequences for forcing a shitty product. (1)

hilather (1079603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212017)

So Microsoft will just release Windows 7 and get away with forcing the average consumer to purchase new computers with Vista on it?

Re:No consequences for forcing a shitty product. (1)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212057)

I wish I would have skipped Vista entirely. Hell, I would have taken Win2k over Vista if I had really known how much I was going to dislike Vista.

As long as people still pay MS for _something_ (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212059)

What do they care. Wonderful thing about still being a virtual desktop monopoly. Am I wrong?

Isn't Windows 7 just Vista R2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212069)

Given that Server 2008 SP1 is the Server Version of Vista SP1 & MS will be releasing Server 2008 R2 in correspondence with Windows 7, isn't it fair to say that Windows 7 is essentially Vista R2?

Granted, some of the painful parts of Vista are being removed & some enhancements made, but the hardware requirements haven't gone down & it's still based on the same core code.

I guess I'll really care when they have a new OS that will run on an Atom based netbook.

Re:Isn't Windows 7 just Vista R2? (3, Interesting)

redxxx (1194349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212587)

I guess I'll really care when they have a new OS that will run on an Atom based netbook.

Windows Embedded Standard 2009. You can actually download the trial and play with it. Build some various loadouts of the operating system. You can included exactly what you want and do some fairly cool things with how it accesses the HDD and loads.

It costs too much, so you won't actually be able to afford more than the trial as individual end user, but you will at least get to see what windows would be if Microsoft would just let us use it how we want.

Meet the new version, same as the old version. (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212085)

I'm not old enough to remember all the promises of '95/'98, etc (More like I didn't care). But I'm already seeing the same XP/Vista/7 cycle start over..

Microsoft is setting themselves up for another round of the same old shit. Vista had favorable reviews from pre-releases and leaked alphas.... and then features started to drop to meet the continually moving release date.

Microsoft is going to have to sever all backwards compatibility at some point if they want a fresh start. Microsoft BOUGHT an Emulator/Virtualizer (Virtual PC), how hard would it be to make a seamless sandboxed XP install?

Not to sound to fanboyish, but Apple has done this TWICE in the last 10 years. First OS 9 -> OS X. Sandboxed everything in Classic. Not everything worked perfect, but it bridged the gap. Then again with the release on Intel If you already had your Apps in XCode all it took was 1 checkmark in a config. That's it. Complete new binary for a new architecture. And if that didn't work you still had Rosetta, which like classic, wasn't perfect but it works. On my laptop I seamlessly run PPC code on an Intel machine with less problems than most people have had with just trying to run Vista.

Not just GUI apps either. I can compile something like coreutils on a PPC machine and run it on an Intel machine, not ideal but it works.

Microsoft is supposedly the 800# gorilla in the corner but it can't figure out how to cut all ties to the past and move on.

Re:Meet the new version, same as the old version. (3, Interesting)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212235)

Why don't they cut backwards compatability? Because businesses want backwards compatability. Businesses are Microsoft's core market. Cut off backwards compatability, and businesses won't like it.

Sure, Apple did it twice, but guess what? That's why Apple isn't very populer within enterprise-level companies.

Re:Meet the new version, same as the old version. (4, Informative)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212253)

Microsoft is the 800# gorilla in the room because it doesn't break backward compatibility. I'm not a mac fanboi but from what I've heard the various changes from one version to the next over the past ten years were not as seamless as you indicated. Most of my friends who use macs (none of whom are technical, they're all in the design space) just gave up on trying to get their old software to work with the new version and bought all new software. Compare that with Microsoft where althought they're not officially supported, almost all DOS applications will still run. So if you bought some piece of software in 1988 for DOS 3.0 chances are pretty good that it will run on Vista.

Re:Meet the new version, same as the old version. (2, Interesting)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212539)

There's a few reasons Mac could do this. First, they're primarily a desktop operating system with stand alone apps. Sandboxing applications isn't the end of the world when looked at in isolation. Alos, their market share at the time was extremely small, with limited 3rd party software support. Much easier to support. Second, they moved from a proprietary framework to a BSD based operating system so they were essentially adapting to a tried/true product.

Microsoft, however, owns 90% (i'm guessing 98%+) of the corporate desktop space. Enterprise applications. Clustered applications. Outlook. MS Office. These dekstops are integrated to server applications that also run Microsoft products. SQL Server. Exchange. Sharepoint. its all an extension of the windows space. To create a sandboxed strategy and execute upon it, would be almost impossible. Their market share dictates slow, incremental steps in between generations. Look how long it took them to get to an NFTS based file system!

Anyone who thinks Microsoft should be moving faster, doesn't have an enterprise view. Look how slowly other products and vendors progress their technology. Solaris. IMS. DB2. Oracle.

I don't see Microsoft losing the corporate desktop space anytime soon, but they're losing the retail battle (mainly due to some clever market by Apple) and it stings them. Microsoft's counter-campaigns have been extremely weak IMHO which has bolstered the impresseion that Mac OS > Vista.

I think I can speak for XP lovers.... (1)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212135)

when i say WHOOOHOOOO! :D I've been intentionally buying "XP downgrade" systems from lenovo to avoid vista, and I'm glad we'll have it for another 6 months! Yay! :)

New security process (3, Informative)

Monoman (8745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212147)

If they use the same security prompts/process as Vista then Windows 7 will be another one to skip. I have found it inconsistent and incomplete.

* If your account is a local admin then should you be prompted to do some things? Probably, but not more than once. I swear there is a minimum of two prompts by default.

* Why does an admin need to choose "Run as admin" for some things?

* If the system is going to prompt me then make sure I will see it. Sometimes the security prompts pop-under. If I go off to another program while waiting for something to finish only to later find the unanswered prompt still waiting for my response.

* If a program requires admin access or "Run as admin" then clearly give the user direction to do so. Try pathping for instance and you get "0 No resources". Launch cmd "as admin" and it works fine.

The Vista security model is horrible IMHO. We are just getting started with Windows 2008 and it looks like it is going to be more of the same. If I am logged in as admin on a server I sure hope I don't get the same incomplete and inconsistent experience. If so, Windows 2008 will be the Server OS to skip from MS. (I'm sure some slashdotters will say they should all be skipped. :-) )

Re:New security process (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212299)

This is the M$ idea that users are dumb so they must be protected. ITs a far cry from the Unix idea where a root user with a few key strokes can del everything on the hard drive including the OS. I am a unix guy, work on servers all day and night idea so I am not dumb enough to do a lost that some in my family such as my sister would do with admin access. The M$ idea is to save people from themselves but its generalizing when a admin has to deal with the same thing a basic business user needs to which is where the security model fails.

And With Vista I will admit its not a bad system, but it has nothing really usefull over XP, IE if you have XP and it works don't bother upgrading, if buying a new system (that has decent ram and cpu as Vista is a hog compared to XP) then get vista and be done with it. The annoyances Vista brings counteract some of the new features to the point I put it about equal to XP overall.

I am personally skipping Vista as I still have valid XP licenses for mys system, but am actually waiting for Windows 7 hopping they fix a lot as if they do I will be looking at upgrading to a 64 bit windows 7 on my main gaming pc. I am not a M$ fan but I give M$ credit where its due and XP and win2000 where good systems, Vista it exists no better or worse and not a upgrade from previous systems but not a downgrade either. I am hoping Windows 7 fixes the Vista stuff.

Re:New security process (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212425)

I can't stand all the security prompts. I would turn them off (which is a worse option on a security stand-point) but then I would get the constant security center warnings. It would be great if the admin account (mine) didn't get prompted. If i want to edit a file in my program files directory then let me do it without questionning me. Hell certain files (editable in notepad) I can't even do a Save. I have to do Save As, to the desktop, delete the old file in the program files directory and then move the file over.

Its the monopoly stupid (4, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212167)

Here's the problem: Microsoft has used illegal tactics to maintain its monopoly gained from unethical practices.

Microsoft's monopoly is so entrenched, that the proto-typical "Sun Oil" case can't even compare.

In a real competitive environment, customers would have long ago abandoned Microsoft. The best analogy is WordStar vs WordPerfect. WordStar was first, but WordPerfect was better. Naturally WordStar lost and is now, no more.

Microsoft is so entrenched, and so anti-standards, that your data and business operations are held hostage. You can't escape the Widows lock-in without paying a lot of money and abandoning some of your core applications.

Furthermore, the monopoly level of Microsoft means that it is unrealistic for ISVs to develop for other platforms because Windows represents 80+% of the market and who can justify an the cost of development unless you can really identify a market. Virtually every notebook and P.C. sold at the consumer and "system" level has Windows installed.

In a real competitive environment, Windows ME, Microsoft BOB, Microsoft Dogs, or Vista would have killed any other company and we would be glad to see them go. But no, it is so bad that users CAN'T escape windows, so they are settling for an 8 year old operating system instead of modern alternatives.

If there was ever a time where clear proof existed that Microsoft needs to be broken up, this is it. Its insane.

Re:Its the monopoly stupid (1)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212483)

In the same breath not only do you say
"You can't escape the Widows lock-in without paying a lot of money and abandoning some of your core applications."

But you finish you rant with
"...Microsoft needs to be broken up, this is it. Its insane."

I half agree with you but your solution to the problem is frankly wrong.

Re:Its the monopoly stupid (3, Insightful)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212499)

Microsoft's monopoly is so entrenched

Not really. MS isn't imposing any monopoly. First of all there are alternatives - some pay some free. So if MS had a true monopoly there would be no alternatives. The problem is that businesses are not willing to move from MS to another software platform. They are not 100% to blame - businesses need to stay competative and part of that is to play well with everyone else. Can't do that if your systems platforms are completely different. Also by going with a less used product you are more limited in your IT staff (more people know windows based products then linx or mac). Lastly if you use a less used product you have to spend extra money training your staff. Overall it is expensive to switch technologies.

MS doesn't have to work to maintain the customer base....if Linux and Mac want to become the defacto business product then they need to adjust themselves to look/feel/work (at least on the front-end) more like MS products -and then offer just as many (e.g. Exchange, Office, compatibility with 95% of the software out there, etc).

You may not like that reality, but it is reality.

Windows Bailout (5, Funny)

loconius (1106103) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212187)

if Windows 7 tanks, they can always ask for bailout money like all the other companies that make crappy products.

hmm (2, Insightful)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212217)

Lets see, 8 years to devolop win vista and only 2 years to develop win 7 Yea this will be good. I will stick to my custom built min install of Debian

M$ feels the pain. (3, Informative)

KcRusty (1437681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212247)

It seems that many people really think there wasn't much recourse for Microsoft putting out such a terrible product in it's initial release of Vista.... This very much so isn't the case.

If we refer to the table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems [wikipedia.org] you can see how much of the market has started to diversify since Vista came out. I think it would be safe to assume that the market share of Vista is somewhat inflated due to the fact that Microsoft made it very difficult to get anything but Vista on a regular consumer machine for quite some time, and now most major builders charge a fee ($150 at some!) to "downgrade" Vista to XP.

Since Q1 of 2007, Microsoft has seen both of their largest competitors in the desktop operating system market (Apple & Linux) double their penetration. Will this possibly drive them to bring us a better product? On a side note, Microsoft Server 2008 as a workstation is definitely worth taking a look at. You can download and use it free for 60 days, and a quick look at http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/ [win2008workstation.com] will give you some pointers on setting it up. There are definitely some things lacking, but it might give you hope that M$ will do something right in their next major release.

Anyone scared... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212373)

that Microsoft will implement DRM features and such in Windows 7? To prevent piracy and whatnot?

tiny step in right direction (4, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212381)

Now, what Microsoft needs to do is:

(1) Offer free DOWNGRADES for anyone with a Vista license.
(2) Offer free UPGRADES to Windows Seven for anyone who buys a machine loaded with Vista.

Today I shall be installing a replacement IDE hard drive in a 6 year old system, a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4, which I'd much rather upgrade but won't simply because anything I bought today would be running Vista.

Re:tiny step in right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212437)

I'd much rather upgrade but won't simply because anything I bought today would be running Vista.

Not if you built your own PC and tracked down a remaining OEM copy of XP somewhere (or just downloaded the torrent of the corporate 'no-activation-needed' version). Just sayin'.

Re:tiny step in right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212511)

(2) Offer free UPGRADES to Windows Seven for anyone who buys a machine loaded with Vista.

If anybody deserves free upgrades, it's the people who paid out-of-pocket at ridiculous retail prices for Vista, not those who've gotten it nearly "free of charge" (ie. at very little added cost over the price of the PC hardware, and peanuts compared to the retail price of the OS.) Give those who got it with their PC free downgrades to XP. Give those who paid for the retail versions - ESPECIALLY those who paid for Vista Ultimate - free upgrades to Windows 7 since it is effectively Windows Vista 1.1 by another name.

Re:tiny step in right direction (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212565)

Unfortunately, Microsoft isn't going to be compensating past-purchasers for either. (I should've said free copies for NEW MACHINE purchasers.) Yeah, giving new Vista buyers added upgrade vouchers would be a smart move by Microsoft. But the "Microsoft tax", which you claim is "very little added cost over the price of the PC hardware", is actually pretty steep.

Re:tiny step in right direction (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212553)

(2) Offer free UPGRADES to Windows Seven for anyone who buys a machine loaded with Vista

I just bought a Dell laptop with Vista and a desktop (from a small manufacturer) with vista. So i have 32bit and 64 bit. I agree, but this won't happen. It will be like all those people who got stuck with ME - though I think Vista is echelons better then ME was.

Windows 7's most important feature (3, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212401)

...will be the name. By not being called "Vista", users won't associate it with all the horror stories they've heard about Vista, so they'll be willing to give it a chance.

It will have a handful of minor improvements, but otherwise I expect it to be mostly identical. Vista's biggest problem is third-party compatibility, which should mostly be worked out by the time Windows 7 ships.

Personally, I hate Vista a lot less than I hate XP. Most people can't understand how I would say that, but that's because they actually like XP. Blech.

I *want* Windows 7 to suck (2, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212409)

I really like the benefits of Linux, and I think that given a little more time to mature, it could really take off with less-technical users. I wouldn't mind Windows 7 sucking just to give Linux a bit more of an incubation period.

(And, given the things MS has pulled in the past, I still think it's got a big karma deficit to work off. I'm still overwhelmed with a sense of schadenfreude against MS.)

Trying to lock users again (2, Interesting)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212451)

As usual, after Vista's debacle, Microsoft communicates about their next generation OS, trying to keep the users focused on their software, to prevent them for looking for competition.

What has changed recently is that the economy crisis will force most of the companies to reduce their cost.
This will be done in two phases:
  - the first one is reducing the number of employees.
  - the second phase will be about reducing the cost of software.

Microsoft is as always very expensive, even though the cost of their development has been largely returned.
I think they will need to reduce the price of their software, or the next years will be difficult for them, especially when competing with free software.

It's due to netbooks, nothing else.. (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212463)

Windows 7 can run on a Netbook. Vista can't.

Until they release software that can compete with Linux on the netbook field (resource usage, anyway), they will *have* to keep Windows XP available.

After that however, Windows 7 looks poised to be a good netbook OS, since the beta specs run at 512 RAM quite well, and the ATOM processor runs Windows 7 just fine.

That said, Linux netbook return rates are very high (I guess largely due to misunderstanding about operating systems when purchasing), and MS is looking to capitalize on it.

Check the definition of "favorable..." (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212475)

Keep in mind that "cautiously favorable" simply means that "Windows 7 is not Vista."

Official Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212489)

I'm trying to find some official Microsoft link/story about this extension. Can anyone find it? I can't. I am wondering if this is fake?

Just OEM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212503)

Why can't they just sell it in frickin stores? When you sell the copies to computer manufacturers, they end up bundling other useless crap with the OS.

When will they learn that some people just want a squeaky clean version of XP?

I'll give you my XP (1)

joeasian (1056578) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212569)

when you take it from my cold, dead hands.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?