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!

XP Reprieve, Downgrade May Continue After Win7

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the operating-system-that-would-not-die dept.

Windows 392

CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer reports that Microsoft acknowledged today it has 'broadened the options' for PC makers to continue offering Windows XP as a downgrade from Vista — and potentially even Windows 7. However, the company would not confirm specific reports that HP has been given the green light to sell new PCs with Windows XP Pro pre-installed through the end of April 2010. 'Windows XP went into semi-retirement in June 2008, when Microsoft stopped selling it at retail and withdrew Windows XP Home from use on all but netbooks, though it allowed XP Professional to be installed as a Vista downgrade. Since then, Microsoft has extended the final date it will sell XP Professional install media to large computer makers and smaller systems builders to July 31, 2009, and May 30, 2009, respectively. Today, Microsoft denied that it had extended the life span of Windows XP, and intimated that those rights were built into the newer operating system — in this case, Vista — and did not expire at some arbitrary date.'" Update: 04/07 14:36 GMT by T : nandemoari adds "Not only will users be able to keep Windows Vista, but they'll be able to step back in time two generations, all the way to XP. "We will offer downgrade rights from Windows 7 to Windows XP in the same way we did with Windows Vista," a Microsoft rep said. Insiders speculate that the right to use this time machine might be reserved for those purchasing licenses for only two versions of Windows 7 — Ultimate and Professional. However, that's not yet been confirmed."

cancel ×

392 comments

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

XP support (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486529)

Does this mean extended support will still end in 2014?

Re:XP support (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486601)

Who cares. By then XP will be a crusty old piece of shit. (More so!)

Re:XP support (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486799)

Who cares. By then XP will be a crusty old piece of shit. (More so!)

You mean a crusty old piece of shit that's still better than their current offerings.

Re:XP support (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486889)

XP needs to die, people have to realize that XP is a dead end that will never improve and that Linux,
*bsd and mac os x can run on hardware Vista and 7 can't while still staying useful.

People have to realize Microsoft can't code their way out of the windows hell to a decent os.

Re:XP support (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486939)

People have to realize Microsoft can't code their way out of the windows hell to a decent os.

People don't care. They just want it to run their favorite game and accounting software. BSD doesn't do that.

Re:XP support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486993)

If you say so.

Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine. (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486763)

Don't worry, other people will support XP.

It was always obvious that if Microsoft delivered one good operating system, most users would not feel a need to have another. Windows XP SP3 is fine for most private users and businesses.

Run limited user accounts and use the latest version of Firefox available in 2015, and that should be sufficiently secure.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (5, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486835)

Interesting post indeed.

XP truely is a fairly slick and fast piece of operating system now.
With Firefox updates, locked down security permissions, a decent AV and firewall just how long could an XP box remain useful to a small business, perhaps a POS machine or email / web / printing / burning terminal?

This is what's causing Microsoft so much trouble, I don't know about the rest of you but the most myself, my friends and my family do on a machine is.

Browse
Email
IM
Video playback
Burning
Downloading
Printing
Collecting photos from cameras
Write documents etc.

That's 99% of the work done on 99% of the machines I support and help with, this is one of many reasons why Vista is having so much trouble.
If anything Vista is approaching things from the wrong angle, I don't believe any one of the above is significantly improved in Vista, if anything - due to the cluttered OS it's harder.

As an IT guy, I suspect I'm going to come across some really old but perfectly working XP installs over the coming 5 and maybe even 10 years, it's almost the DOS6.22 of OS's - just fire and forget.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486897)

That's 99% of the work done on 99% of the machines I support and help with, this is one of many reasons why Vista is having so much trouble.
If anything Vista is approaching things from the wrong angle, I don't believe any one of the above is significantly improved in Vista, if anything - due to the cluttered OS it's harder.

Vista does one thing better. It is possible to run (almost?) everything in user-mode, without the need for every user to be administrator. I don't know how much this improves security, but it is an improvement. Whenever I need admin-rights, a box pops up asking for the right login.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (1)

24-bit Voxel (672674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487009)

To do this in windows xp I'm prety sure all you have to do is hold down shift and right click an icon and use the "Run As" command.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487125)

Correct, you need to anticipate it.

As a general user this is not always intuitive.

Of course, as a general user the pop-up may be about as much protection as running as administrator.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (4, Interesting)

scientus (1357317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487151)

First: Linux/Unix has done this since it was created

Second: and improvements of programs to do user-mode on vista will translate to user-mode capabilities for XP, although few people will use that.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (0, Troll)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487127)

a POS machine

I thought it was the right software, Vista for instance, that made the machine a POS...

;-)

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487153)

Firefox 3 does not run on OS X.3 (though this is probably due to Apple's conversion to Intel), or Windows Me, or NT4, why do you assume it will run on XP in 5 more years?

Firefox 2, End-of-lifed in 12/2008, supported OS X.2, ans Windows Me.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (1, Offtopic)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487169)

Firefox 3 is very, very feature complete and Firefox 2 is still getting basic security patches.

Considering my desired use of a browser, honestly FF3 does everything I currently want and I can't see it having something so mindblowingly awesome in 4.0 that I HAVE to switch.
It will continue to work for me for 5 years, sure.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (1, Redundant)

NighthawkFoo (16928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487233)

FF2 no longer gets security updates - they EOLed the product late last year.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487019)

What MS needs is new hardware.

Let's ponder. WinNT to 2k. What was the reason? That NT was "too old" or that 2k was "slicker, faster, better, newer"? Nah. USB support and DirectX. Win2k to XP? Wifi. No, seriously. That's pretty much all that is so terribly different. Ok, the DirectX SDK for 9.0c doesn't want to run on 2k, but you can convince it. Oh, and I think you need XP for some of the later .NET goodies.

In a nutshell, it was always MS deciding to abandon support for "older" systems that should convince people they "want" the new system. They tried the same stunt with Vista, by not offering DirectX10 support for XP. It fizzled because neither people nor industry cared.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487161)

I think with every version MS makes some great strides in the File Browser.

And some huge back-steps in the network one.

I am still frustrated every time there is not a network neighbourhood as I am instead left picking a network place and going up a level to get there.

Re:Just use the latest Firefox, and you'll be fine (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487253)

Run limited user accounts and use the latest version of Firefox available in 2015, and that should be sufficiently secure.

My guess is that even with a completely open, unsecured, Administrator-using WinXP you'll be secure in 2015. Take any current threat and try to run it against WinNT, 9 out of 10 won't even run.

If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486531)

Even faster than Windows XP, most of the incentive to downgrade is gone and it'll just be a shrinking market.

The only thing I can think of is driver compatibility for that random device that they don't have Vista driver for yet or just something unsupported since then.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (-1, Troll)

krenaud (1058876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486657)

Win7 is probably faster than XP the same way Vista is faster than XP according to MS. That is if you have a multi core machine with lots of RAM. Also, Win7 still has DRM-crap which slows down I/O operations on external media including networks.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (2, Informative)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486781)

Can you cite some benchmarks that prove your little crazy bit about the DRM-crap slowdown is real?

I see people spouting that kind of thing off all the time, but I never see any kind of information to back it up.

Plus, it hasn't just been Microsoft saying 7 is faster. A lot of the independent benchmarks coming out have 7 as faster than Vista and XP in just about everything.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (3, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486873)

I can't believe I have to make this post, it's insane.
(I was banned for 20 days on a VERY stupid and pedantic Aussie forum for arguing the same thing with someone who insisted 7 is faster than XP)

NO VERSION OF WINDOWS HAS EVER BEEN FASTER THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE, IT'S SIMPLY FUCKING BULLSHIT.
PERIOD!

If you get new hardware then duh! of course it's going to be faster
Get yourself a single core, 1gb machine with a medium speed hard disk.
Put on Windows XP.
Now put on Windows Vista or Windows 7.
It WILL be slower, period.

Now, get yourself a quad core 12gb machine with a 15,000rpm hard disk.
Put on Windows XP
Now put on Windows Vista or Windows 7.
It WILL be slower, period.

It does more, it may be sloppy code, it may be better code! but it's still, always always doing more, this rule of thumb has been since the dawn of man.
Perhaps ONE operation or two might work faster or be streamlined but essentially under the hood the services always increase, the background tasks increase, it IS slower.

I can't believe anyone with any actual, genuine IT knowledge would question otherwise.

I'll put my only disclaimer here.
It's possible, just possible that Windows 7 may break this rule and be faster than Vista, this is a possibiliy but I haven't tested enough to be sure.
However besides this, 7 is slower than XP as Vista is slower than XP, XP is slower than 2K
98SE is slower than 95.... and so on and so forth.

This isn't opinion, this is fact, easily backed by a stopwatch or half an ounce of brain.
Mark this post +500 and for god sakes link to it when some idiot claims otherwise, he's been reading too many marketing brochures or he's drinking the cool aid (or trying to defend a purchase he just made and wants to feel warm and fuzzy)

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487013)

Install Windows XP 32bit on the machine with 12GB RAM. Work with a 10 GB data set.

Now, install Windows Vista 64bit on the machine with 12GB. Work with a 10GB data set.

Compare the speed. You now may argue that Windows XP 64bit exists: But that version has the same compatibility problems that plague Vista.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (2, Informative)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487239)

While your point is technically correct, this is a very very different argument, this is version to version.

XP 64 will be quicker than Vista 64 as a core OS, due to the backend doing 'stuff'
XP 32 will be quicker than Vista 32 as a core OS, due to the backend doing 'stuff'

I appreciate you pointing it out but I think we both know what I meant and I stand by it.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (2, Insightful)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487021)

I mean I generally agree with you but it sounds like you're on a rant from whatever happened on that other forum.

What if (and this is, of course, an if - I've only started getting into Windows 7 after looking at my options for an HTPC, so outside of Media Center, I don't know much about it) Windows 7 handles things like gobs of RAM or multi-core processors better than XP? Then 7 will be faster on the same hardware than XP.

What you're generally saying is true, sometimes technology (dual channel memory for example?) can level the playing field.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27487023)

So you don't actually have anything whatsoever to back you up, besides that you desperately want to be right? No wonder you were banned.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487031)

We already know from beta testers that win7 is faster than Vista. So your 'never' has already been proven wrong.

As for 'it will have more code', that doesn't mean all that code runs all the time or that it's slower. In fact, you could say the same thing about Linux, and yet there have been distros that improved their overall speed over time through various technologies, like GPU acceleration.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (3, Insightful)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487099)

All we know is that a pre-release version of win7 is supposedly faster than a release version of Vista. Pre-release versions of Vista where faster than the commercial release of Vista as well.

Let's wait until Win7 hits the shelves before taking speculation as gospel.

If win7 will end up being faster than Vista, I'll drink to you. Otherwise I'll drink to me. Either way, it seems I win! :-)

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487193)

Congratulations on trying to rebute my post with several points I'd already made in the post itself!
You either didn't read it or chose to ignore them, either way your post has 'already been proven wrong'

I notice you're one of those people who have put a nice little red dot against your name to me, bravo - you're hard as nails internet avenger, hard as nails.

Next time read the post before hitting reply.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (5, Funny)

catdriver (885089) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487063)

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487257)

That is very much me, I won't deny it :)

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27487101)

Are you accounting for XP being 32 bit and VISTA/7 being 64 bit? There is a rare XP version that is supposed to run in 64 bit mode but it has its own problems.
As for me, I'll have XP for as long as I possibly can. It works, I understand it, and it has no DRM crap. It also doesn't limit what I can view or listen to, which I understand is not the case with VISTA/7. Microsoft sold out to big recording/movie companies instead of keeping its customers in mind.
Thats all I'm sayin'.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487207)

Someone else has already brought up the 64 / 32 bit point.
Firstly, Vista (AND Windows 7!) are not 64bit exclusive operating systems, infact if 7 was, I wouldn't have made my initial post.

and yes though, you're right, there's times where 64bit can obviously smash 32bit in performance.

However for the sake of argument.
ANY computer you purchase now, be it a quad core i7 or a single core Athlon 3200+, Windows 7 and Vista will be slower, due to things which 'apparently' make it faster, like superfetch and the disk indexing tool (which works only in idle time,.... yeah right..)

Appreciate the post none the less, good to see an AC not post something abusive and shallow. (make an account!)

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (1)

scientus (1357317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487165)

your generally right, but its not always that way.

If a new version is optimized only for newer hardware than it will/can be faster than the old software, with hardware backwards compatibility, on all new hardware.

For example 32-bit/64-bit transition.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487087)

What, you think DRM-processing is somehow resource-free? The cycles and memory that must be allocated to do it come from magical land instead of system resources? Please. As talked about at length here [auckland.ac.nz] , Flatout 2 plays 15% slower with DRM than without. DRM can also decrease battery life by 25% because of the additional processor load creating more heat.

Re:If Windows 7 is as fast as they claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27487199)

W7 may only be faster because its running on brand new hardware. Imagine how fast XP would run on those multi-CPU, multi-gigabit memory, PCIx boards -- if there was sufficient support.

As long as games (yes, games), browsers, mail, and office productivity apps run on XP, MS is not providing a compelling enough reason to change.

There are simply too many of us who 'migrated' from 3.1 to 3.11 to 95 and spent countless hours 'fixing' the migrations that we are not in such a hurry to believe the marketing fluff and move off of what just works.

What a Strange Idea (5, Funny)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486533)

People are going to be allowed to buy the OS they prefer rather than the one that Microsoft prefers they buy? What a strange idea? Can American capitalism survive thinking like this?

Putting MS in check. (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486605)

People are going to be allowed to buy the OS they prefer rather than the one that Microsoft prefers they buy? What a strange idea? Can American capitalism survive thinking like this?

Ah, whether you're buying a Cobalt or a Corvette, GM is just happy you're on their damn lot to begin with. In light of the economy and the amazing shrinking budget, Microsoft would be wise to put themselves in the same humble position.

This has little to do with what's "better" at this point vs. what business customers don't want to have to deal with (driver issues, software incompatibility, buying new hardware for the sake of software, etc.)

Re:Putting MS in check. (4, Insightful)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486671)

Totally true, but you can't buy a new '68 Covrette C3 StingRay from the GM Factory.

Re:Putting MS in check. (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486709)

Totally true, but you can't buy a new '68 Covrette C3 StingRay from the GM Factory.

But you can get that horrible PT Cruiser. And my 1994 Townace van is basically a 1970 Corona.

Re:Putting MS in check. (1)

omi5cron (1455851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486935)

i OWN a PT Cruiser, you insensitive clod!! (i really do, and love it).

Re:Putting MS in check. (2, Funny)

iainl (136759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487003)

If you pick just the right shade of hot pink, it actually looks a tiny bit like the hot-rod they were aiming for, instead of a hearse with go-faster stripes.

Re:Putting MS in check. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486975)

Totally true, but you can't buy a new '68 Covrette C3 StingRay from the GM Factory.

That's the Feds that make that deal impossible.

Re:What a Strange Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486647)

What a strange idea- producers are going to be allowed to offer products they prefer? oh noes, how will consumers survive?

The future (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486537)

"Entity X27. Your navigational hipostaticer is ready."
"I calmly express great joy"
"Do you want us to install Conscious Neurolinker MarkIII? Or Windows XP."
"Windows XP"
"Ok... Oh, wait. Your hipostaticer doesn't allow it sorry."
"Are you *expletive* making a joke on my behalf? *expletive* you! You *expletive* slow person."

Re:The future (1, Offtopic)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486573)

+10 Funny.

Re:The future (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486809)

wow your writing style is JUST like William Gibson!

I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,..... (5, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486549)

Microsoft, I'll give up my obsession with XP, skip Vista and widely support Windows 7, if you guys have the testicles to release Windows 7 as a 64bit only operating system.

I dare you, I double dare you - do the right thing for a change.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486599)

I dare you, I double dare you - do the right thing for a change.

Only if Elon Musk is in charge. [jalopnik.com]

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (1)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486611)

I dare you, I double dare you - do the right thing for a change.

After seeing the efforts to 'do the right thing' in Vista, I'd prefer Microsoft sticks to doing the wrong things consistently.

Better the devil you know...

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (3, Interesting)

zlogic (892404) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486723)

If 64-bit Windows 7 would be slow like the 64bit edition Ubuntu 8.10, then no thanks.
The thing uses 1 gig of RAM for mail and web browsing. Java apps use nearly twice the RAM compared to the 32-bit edition because there are too many pointers. The same with gcc, a simple build task consumes 500 megs of RAM compared to 350 in 32-bit. So one gigabyte in 64-bit Ubuntu is as slow as 512 megs in Vista.

Oh, and netbooks run on Celeron or Atom CPUs, meaning Microsoft would have to continue selling Windows XP.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (2, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486801)

Something is wrong with your machine or you're living in the past.
PC's have stagnated for years upon years due to holding on compatibility of older operating systems and architecture.

The switch from 16bit CPU's to 32bit CPU's to true 32bit OS's was really, really far far too long.
A mandatory 64bit OS with 32bit emulation through a VM would be far smarter than damn well releasing two different copies.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486995)

Yeah back when most people used the Z80 and 6502 I read an article about how people should reconsider getting an 8086 machine because the eight bit architecture is much better for word processing.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27487025)

coincidentally, isn't that what macOS does with programs from its pre-OSX operating systems?

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (5, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487147)

because there are too many pointers.

I know, let's have some short pointers so we can save memory, but let's also have long pointers so we can address all the memory.

Let's call them "near" and "far" pointers. Let's make the programmer declare them explicitly. I think it will provide for a massive productivity boost.

Oh, and let's add memory segments too ;-)

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (-1, Troll)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486737)

What the fuck is wrong with you? If you have a 64-bit CPU, use the 64-bit version. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that, unless you've skipped your medication and you've just GOT TO HAVE YOUR WAYYYY OMGFA!!!!!

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (2, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486813)

Are you new to computers by any chance?
Do you even remember the 16bit to 32bit era, do you know what having multiple versions does for developers and segmenting the market?

Please, come back to this thread when you have a clue or you've been in IT for more than 2 years.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487081)

The problem is the developers.

Imagine for a second you're a developer of software. Now, of course you want to sell to the biggest market. So you're developing for Windows. Yeah, you might even prefer doing stuff for Linux, but... bigger market, ok?

32 or 64 bit? Well, 64bit machines can run 32bit code. 32bit machines can't run 64bit code. So you're developing yet another 32bit application.

Why should this be bad? Does it really matter at all?

It matters because it slows down the transition to 64bit. Which means we're facing a bottleneck, or more precisely, we're already in it. You may or may not remember the days of 640k ram and "some above that". The hoops we jumped through and the ways we bent to make those 640k "last" when it was plain obvious that about 25 times that amount of ram was in order is ridiculous. Yet it had to be done, because programs were written for those 640k "and some above that" ram, systems that were stuck in offset/segment ram addressing because you couldn't really sensibly change it or break compatibility...

And we're heading there again. As long as there is a large 32 bit market, and there will be as long as there are new 32bit system, application programmers will create 32bit software which will be bought and used, and which will create quite a bit of headaches when the time comes that we HAVE to move on to 64bit.

Maybe you remember the headaches you had when you went from DOS to Win95. And not because 95 bluescreened every other minute.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487113)

I don't see this is much as a problem, as long as compatibility of these 32bit apps on 64bit Windows is tested and works as it should.

I don't think the client of an ERP package should be a 64bit application "just because". There's no advantage gained from doing so.

I run 64bit Windows 7 at Home, and 64bit Windows Vista on my work laptop. Both run fine.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487215)

Well, given that netbooks are still shipping with 32 bit cores, and are probably the fastest growing (and maybe even fastest selling) segment of consumer devices right now, I think MS and any other operating system vendor would have to be damned foolish to only release a 64 bit version.

32 bit is going to be here for a while boys, get comfy.

Re:I'm an XP lover but how about we make a deal,.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27487103)

Why? There are still lots of 32bit CPUs, like in most netbooks. What would be better if Windows 7 doesn't support these? Even if Windows 7 would suddenly replace every other Windows on those 64bit machines there are still big numbers of 32bit machines that the software vendors just can't ignore. It doesn't help anyone, the only result of that would be that Windows 7 doesn't work on netbooks. Why is that good?

OMG Just let us be! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486565)

Come on microsoft! Just let us be!

Let the people have their damn Win XP!!!

Or.. make something better? Is that such a novel thought?

We're still waiting.........

the bigger mystery.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486595)

I wonder what kind of kickback Dell gets for colluding with M$ by offering only very limited Linux options?

Re:the bigger mystery.. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486901)

It's much better than no Linux options. They don't even offer XP on all their machines. Some people are never happy..

It's about compatibility (5, Informative)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486617)

Same reasons many can't upgrade to Vista...

Spanners in the works:
-New driver model meaning much older hardware just doesn't work.
-UAC breaks lots of badly written apps. Causes huge annoyances at best in these instances.
-64bit. First serious 64 bit consumer Windows.
-No IE6. You wouldn't believe how many legacy apps require IE6 and/or ActiveX, it's quite sickening actually.

Any one of these can be a show-stopped for your app/system, and on older apps this can be a nightmare to have to work round that often isn't worth the investment until forced. I've seen many legacy business apps in particular that break because of Windows re-engineering (Vista). Same applies for Win7.

Re:It's about compatibility (1)

Daerath (625570) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486705)

I don't really see those as problems. What "older hardware" are you referring to? I have Vista running without problem on a machine that is about 5 years old. For desktops, that's well beyond end-of-life. UAC breaking badly written apps is a problem? Good. What app is it and why not go to one that isn't badly written? How is being 64-bit a downside? You can get a 32-bit version if you aren't on a 64-bit architecture and 64-bit Vista runs very nicely. No IE6... I can't say I go around trying to find legacy apps that need IE6, but you can still use ActiveX controls in IE7 and I haven't see a single page that doesn't work unless I'm using IE6. Are you referring to custom written software for a business/government customer?

Pretty much any HP printer (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486767)

Pretty much any HP printer
Fuckers

About 2 years ago, it took me a month to get duplex working.

Re:Pretty much any HP printer (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487033)

My LaserJet 4m works just fine with Vista 64bit.

Re:Pretty much any HP printer (2, Funny)

iainl (136759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487045)

There's an easy solution for that:

1) Open window
2) Pick up HP Printer
3) Throw printer through window
4) Buy a new, compatible printer, from a company who doesn't overcharge so much for ink.

the savings on ink costs will pay for it in short order, and step 1 means you don't need to factor in glazing costs, either. That's how nice I am.

Re:It's about compatibility (1)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486877)

To be honest, I don't see them as problems for most normal people & companies either. On the driver side though you have to remember that XP has 10 years of driver investment behind it; Vista has 2, so that's 8 years of discontinued hardware that will never work in Vista. For some that's a show-stopper, for most not a problem.

The 64-bit thing I mentioned just because the teething problems of the Vista gets lumped into one category from the 2 very different architectures. A bit like how some places still hang onto 16 bit + Win 3.11 apps now - ancient systems which have just never been updated.

And the IE6 thing is a hang-over from the browser-wars and the days of hugely varying HTML standards.
Some apps were written for IE5, then to 5.5, and just made it into 6. It's changing now, but I remember even some MS stuff that had problems in IE7 until they patched it, so imagine for other big browser-based apps; they too will probably be forever incompatible until replaced completely, which doesn't happen overnight.

This is all stuff that's going to improve and hopefully will be a distant memory, but things move slowly in some (very small) circles; it's in these that Vista+ just isn't an option yet.

Re:It's about compatibility (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486981)

hugely varying HTML standards

Doesn't that make it, by definition, not a standard?

IE6 (1)

biscuitlover (1306893) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486937)

You wouldn't believe how many legacy apps require IE6

I think it's quite fitting that the self-serving proprietary bullshit and lack of standards in IE6 might actually translate into a few lost OS sales for MS some years later.

Re:It's about compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27487061)

I once ran a photo ID workstation running AsureID Express with a Kodak DVC-323 USB camera. I actually had to run Windows 2000, since Kodak's TWAIN driver only worked up to Windows 2000. It was a pretty old camera--from 1998 IIRC--but it still did its job.

To be honest, I didn't mind running Windows 2000. It was a P4/1.6 with 256 MB of RAM, and 2000 ran damn fast on it.

Re:It's about compatibility (1)

grodzix (1235802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487079)

-No IE6. You wouldn't believe how many legacy apps require IE6 and/or ActiveX, it's quite sickening actually.

You're right, I wouldn't believe it. Unless you run lots of progs called Obscurity released in 2001 (which almost no one does).

Re:It's about compatibility (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487149)

Agreed, as a win dev (cringe) I see this often! Accounting systems, vss and a others all cause headaches, and what's the default solution most people have? Disable UAC. That's no good either!

Older apps that use unmanaged / low-level code stop working, why? Because they we're written before UAC existed. These apps weren't necessarily badly written, they just accommodated the host OS's capabilities. The host just didn't have a well thought out, solid foundation.

This is nothing other than bad design, Windows is like an old dilapidated house, rooms overlapping each other to cover the cracks in the lower rooms. It's a maze of hacks, and UAC is just another hack to cover up the holes in the foundation. Did I mention Windows is built upon an old Indian burial ground?

It's the year of the linux desktop! (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487245)

Seriously, teh linux now supports far more hardware than recent MS releases, and this will continue to be true unless lots of hardware vendors:

1) Put a lot of effort into porting drivers for old products. There's no revenue in that.
2) Come back from the dead

So it's XP or linux now if you want to use that more-than-three-year-old non-standard printer/scanner/modem/webcam/doohickey. I know people who are still downgrading their new machines for this very reason.

I know it's wishful thinking to hope that linux can pick up some of the downgrade traffic, but I guess that's precisely why MS have extended the life of XP again and again.

Personally, I think most folks would be fooled if they just released an XP "look and feel" skin for vista with lots of the candy and annoyances turned off.

This can't continue indefinitely (1, Interesting)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486669)

What an ironic two-edged sword the success of Windows XP has turned out to be. Wintel has been all about the upgrade cycle, keeping on the forefront of Moore's Law (and of course Gates' Corollary). Now, I'm almost a little scared.

Now, don't get me wrong, I go to great lengths to avoid supporting Microsoft. But it's time for XP to die---it's way past its expiration date. I can't think of any truly useful purpose for it: anything needing a stripped-down version of windows should do fine with Win2k, and anything else should use something more recent. Vista isn't that much of a dog, and Win7 promises to either make good on Microsoft's promises or doom the entire company to irrelevance.

XP is old, and insecure, and linux beats the pants off of it, especially on netbooks (like the one I'm typing on). I'm terribly worried that there is still such a demand for it. Enough is enough! XP was brilliant during its time, and I can understand being emotionally attached to it because of that, but it's not the solution to any problem any more. And if you're not part of the solution...

Re:This can't continue indefinitely (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486733)

Actually I think the problem for Microsoft is that Windows has been done. It is done like the row boat and the aeroplane. From here on Microsoft have to invent new directions for their product. But that is being done elsewhere by the likes of google and twitter.

Re:This can't continue indefinitely (1)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486805)

actually, just look at all the home users/gamers. vista requires a much heavier pc, and for gamers it takes away much more resources then vista. The logical answer is the past version, wich happens to be xp. If windows 7 has a version that doesn't waste many resources, or even just an option that isn't too hard to find, then it'll be the successor of windows xp for those people.

Re:This can't continue indefinitely (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486849)

Nope, i have games that will not run on Win2k, which is the reason I upgraded to XP two years ago(yeah, I prefer not to be on the cutting edge). Of course, i had ME when it first came out(gateway computer) and it sucked royally. But about a year later, gateway sent me an updated ME, which I ran for three years and it rocked. No crashes, no BSoD,and I used it until mobo burned up and the CD would not load on new computer. Went to Win2K at that point. Reality is that most users, not the /. techno-geeks, are perfectly happy with an operating system that allows them to cruise the web, write papers, run a spreadsheet and do basic stuff. Note that very few people run out and upgrade Office, etc unless they change computers and get it new. Microsoft should keep XP as a basic core OS for normal people and just add SPs and upgrades to it to make it work with newer hardware.

Re:This can't continue indefinitely (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487015)

Microsoft should keep XP as a basic core OS for normal people and just add SPs and upgrades to it to make it work with newer hardware.

Why not with Windows 2000? It does all the things you listed and in my experience was very stable.

No, it's not time for it to die - accounting (4, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486957)

There are many people who run Windows-only programs, especially in the accounting world, and a lot of them will never get ported with WINE. How many people need to run accounting programs of one sort or another? A hell of a lot. Most of them run absolutely fine on netbooks - accounting doesn't use fancy graphics - which is the sole reason we have XP on netbooks. Why do I need Vista to print off a list of debtors or email statements? I don't. Win 2K is not much good for netbooks - it doesn't support all the hardware, especially the USB stuff.

So, much as I like Ubuntu 8.10 which runs on my servers, it is actually useless on most of our desktops and netbooks as it cannot run two out of our essential four programs.

Because accounting programs are very conservative and stable, I expect them to be running perfectly adequately on XP in ten years time. So why do I want Vista?

I just bought an XP machine. (2, Insightful)

terbo (307578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486713)

Just bought a newly released Asus netbook pre-loaded with XP.

I don't know why they chose XP, it could have been
many reasons, but as a casual user the changes
from Vista to XP were substantial - but they
always will be - your options are always the same.

(a) Choose another, similar product from the [vendor]
(b) Choose another, similar product from another vendor

In the case of windows and its lack of ethics in
regards to inter-operability [or their past] this
has harmed their overall effectiveness in the market.
The consumer has been locked in, and more
importantly so has their data ...

Now to change means an entire platform shift, as
there is nothing that is fully compatible and as
"comfortable".

Get rid of platform dependance, version
dependance. I myself run several machines
on this little netbook, multiboot and vm,
and they all perform various functions.

1 XP for my Vista (1)

MikeOtl67of (1503531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486725)

I wish they were taking back the copy I bought of Vista. I don't want money, just a working XP would do... At least my money would not had been all wasted!

Oh what Junk! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486757)

Why don't they just dry up and blow away?
Ballmer can provide all the 'blow' they need.
Absolutely no value added.

And still developing Win7? (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486815)

It really makes me wonder why Microsoft bothers with the continued development of Windows. The customers have spoken: they like XP, and find it so good that they do not even bother to upgrade nor switch to the much more modern Linux distributions that are available already for years. Vista flopped, and Win7 (or whatever it's going to be called upon release) is also not getting a too warm reception so far.

Just lay off >90% of the workers, keep a core of XP maintainers, and profit.

Re:And still developing Win7? (3, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486859)

It really makes me wonder why Microsoft bothers with the continued development of Windows. The customers have spoken: they like XP, and find it so good that they do not even bother to upgrade nor switch to the much more modern Linux distributions that are available already for years. Vista flopped, and Win7 (or whatever it's going to be called upon release) is also not getting a too warm reception so far.

Just lay off >90% of the workers, keep a core of XP maintainers, and profit.

Exactly. I don't think it's customers saying they like XP, but it does what 95% of folks out there need to get done: email...sorry showing my age, I meant facebook, web, and some paperwork. And guess what there is little reason to upgrade hardware or the OS if your only concern is how fast your facebook page loads. That's up to your provider. Unless there is a "must have" in 7, there is little to no reason to upgrade.

XP forever (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486847)

They should change the support model for XP. Offer it for free and charge for support.

It's still a popular OS that will be in use for years to come - if people are still deploying it on new machines today.

Re:XP forever (2, Interesting)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487051)

That would be a disaster. Even with Auto Update being free, what would happen if people would have to pay for security fixes?

The situation would be even worse than it is today. Remember: Conficker happened because of idiots, not because Microsoft fucked up - a patch was released almost a month before conficker hit the net.

A Catch 22 (3, Informative)

WoollyMittens (1065278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486855)

Microsoft can't smash the competition in the Netbook market without Windows XP, which itself is a product they can't make a profit on anymore and are desperate to get rid off.

Re:A Catch 22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486965)

your comment is right on the money. yesterday's article [slashdot.org] on MS announcing 96% penetration of the netbook is precisely that; they've strong-armed all the manufacturers into releasing netbooks with XP home, likely at the promise of volume discounts on windows 7. at newegg i noted 2 linux netbooks out of a total of 46. MS was talking about the market, not about sales; control the market and the sales will follow(TM).

isn't it about time the DoJ had another look?

Re:A Catch 22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486999)

can't make profit on?
_every_ sold license is one.

i guess they've made profit over their engineering costs. so by now _every_ license is 99% profit.

even if they said "your copy is illigal, please buy a license key for a mere $25,- " i'd immeadiatly do so.
(which is even less than what some guys ask to get you rid from WGA!)

Industry holds adoption back (4, Insightful)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486863)

Industry has always lagged behind the consumer market.

Well into the 90s, in the right catalogs, you could still buy VESA cards and other legacy parts, to keep repairing the 286/386 boxes running DOS and your NC lathe/drill/w.e.. Why should a business upgrade to some shiny new box when the old one, completely amortized and producing pure profit, was still working just fine, thank you very much.

Likewise with the new OS and Office suite. Gartner said when Vista/Office 2K7 came out "no compelling reason to upgrade [google.com] ". Any bean counter worth his salt could see that the new software combination would require a considerable cash outlay in new hardware just to keep productivity at current levels. Non-adoption became a no-brainer.

What MS did was ignore the market and attempt to make too clean a break from their previous policy of the greatest backwards compatibility for hardware and software. They miscalculated and are now reaping the results of that decision.

Re:Industry holds adoption back (3, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487083)

I work for a small ERP ISV in Switzerland.

We run 90% internally, and have several customers that run 100% Vista. And none of those customers hate Vista - in fact, they don't understand what all the fuss is about in the Media, since it's working very well for them. A rather big customer started in June 2007 with 100% Vista.

The reasons behind these things are simple: Their most important application is our ERP software - which works very well on their machines. If they are using other software and hardware, we ensured full vendor support for Windows Vista. We also ensured that all the hardware they use is supported by Vista, and replaced that hardware that wasn't supported (mostly 50$ desktop printers).

Also, Vista was deployed on appropriate hardware - 2.x Ghz Core 2 Duo with 3GB of RAM.

Vista was mostly Microsoft trying to do the right thing, forcing their ecosystem to get current, especially in dropping the requirements for local administrator rights.

I would imagine that for enterprises with lots of applications developed by the lowest indian bidder, the result will be that most of their software won't run on anything except the Windows XP SP1 with Patches KB123 and KB456 installed.

Vista offers a lot of features for businesses that would otherwise require complicated third party solutions. Bitlocker is great for small businesses, as it allows full disk encryption that is extremely easy to use and secure enough.

PDP-11 would be a better example... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27487185)

PCI wasn't introduced until the Pentium in 1993, and new consumer VESA cards were still being introduced until late '94 or early '95.

You could still get support for your PDP-11 controlling your NC lathe/drill from Mentec well into this decade, though they seem to have finally dropped out around 2007.

Windows 7 failing before it's even released? (2, Insightful)

skiman1979 (725635) | more than 5 years ago | (#27486899)

So they're saying Windows 7 will be such a failure before it's even released, that customers may want to just stick with XP until Microsoft straightens things out?

I'll stick with Linux myself.

GET IT RIGHT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486955)

Going from Vista to XP is an UPGRADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It'd be kinda funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27486971)

to see "Windows 8" to be NT 5.3. That is, if 7 is a failure (and by failure I mean that XP still has majority market share 2 1/2 years after 7 was released).

Ahhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27487249)

The joys of working with a monopoly...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>