×

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!

One Year Later, "Dead" XP Still Going Strong

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the killed-the-wrong-one dept.

Windows 538

snydeq writes "Microsoft pulled the plug on Windows XP a year ago today, no longer selling new copies in most venues. Yet according to a report from InfoWorld, various downgrade paths to XP are keeping the operating system very much alive, particularly among businesses. In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs. Microsoft recently planned to further limit the ability to downgrade to XP now that Windows 7 is in the pipeline, but backlash against the licensing scheme prompted the company to change course, extending downgrade rights on new PCs from April 2010 to April 2011."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

538 comments

Windows 7 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536473)

This trend will stop when Windows 7 is introduce.

Mark it on the wall.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536533)

Yes, the Windows 7 theme really makes Vista much better.

Re:Windows 7 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536789)

Yeah, sure does. And I'd like to take this opportunity to give a big shout out to all of those people that Microsoft sold a copy of Vista to.

Thanks for being unpaid beta testers for Win7 - we appreciate your time, money, frustration, and effort. Your stubborn refusal to ditch Vista will be rewarded - just as soon as you ditch Vista for the paid patch that is Win7. Thanks again, and study your WC Fields next time.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536825)

Thanks for being unpaid beta testers for Win7 - we appreciate your time, money, frustration, and effort. Your stubborn refusal to ditch Vista will be rewarded - just as soon as you ditch Vista for the paid patch that is Win7. Thanks again, and study your WC Fields next time.

you mean thanks for paying to be win7 tester?

Re:Windows 7 (5, Interesting)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536963)

Where I work we just started taking pre-orders on Windows 7.

An elderly gentleman came in (today) and was ecstatic to place an order. His son installed it on his computer and he said he has never been happier. He stated he hated Vista and had kept his XP until the beta. I bombarded him with questions and the jist of his satisfaction came from the simplicity and speed Win7 had.

In my opinion this guy was a prime example that Microsoft might have a winner, both in the eyes of people who are technologically savvy as well as somebody who is anything but.

I personally still run 32-bit xp on my Core i7 (Except for games, damn DX10), and I have been bitterly against an upgrade for fear of hidden DRM treats down the line. Only time will tell.

Re:Windows 7 (3, Interesting)

juventasone (517959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537169)

Any perceived "speed" improvement in 7 is misguided. You will hear many people say that their PC has better performance after removing the included Vista installation, and installing XP/7/linux. This is actually because of the amount of additional software installed by the hardware vendor.

This software can be divided into two categories: applications from the vendor that manage updates, backups, connectivity, media handling, recovery, you name it (even though Vista has all of these things already), and applications from third-parties that are trials/demos/upgradable that gives the hardware vendor a kickback if purchased by the end user.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537227)

I had the same experience when change from Vista to Vista on my laptop. I formatted the machine and installed a fresh copy of just Vista, without all the crap ware, and boot times went from 2 minutes to 30 seconds. Also, the entire machine is much more responsive.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537307)

I think you have a very good point. That said, independent of that extra crap, users will see a difference. Win 7 won't significantly affect CPU/etc benchmarks but it is definitely more responsive to the user both while idle or under load. Much much snappier than vista. Combine that with whatever performance improvements are in the pipe for office and I'm pretty sure information workers will have a pretty compelling reason to want a new machine with win7+2010.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537319)

I've never come across this argument before. You're right in principle, but do you have a source to back up that it's true in fact as well?

I'll counter your anecdote with my own: I had Vista installed on my MacBook for about a month. Read: I installed it myself, no vendor crapware involved. Once I got fed up with the atrocious startup time I wiped it and switched to XP and it's much faster all-around.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537333)

I don't think so.
The real reason these computers are running XP is because the software people bought the machine for in the first place doesn't run in Vista yet so it's certainly not going to run in Windows 7.

ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536495)

After we took a look at Vista, Who Knew XP would look so good? Actually XP was never "bad", and it's pretty stable considering all the garbage people install on their PCs. Although people say (in surveys) that they don't like "renting" their OS software, I (and my corporate clients) wouldn't mind at all paying a yearly fee for ongoing maintenance of XP, or, perhaps for a new 3 or 5-year license with "support". And since the Web is so good for self-support for some time now, we would just be looking for maintenance releases and security updates. And we already "rent" many of our applications, from security suites to corporate apps with support. Microsoft would benefit because they would effectively get "us" to be purchasing OS licenses just the same as if we bought Windows 7 (or whatever). The resellers would be losers of course, coz we wouldn't be buying so much new hardware, but that's not especially "our" problem. For business use, anything over 1.6 GHz (sometimes even slower!)/512MB RAM or so is just icing on the cake for XP. It runs pretty well in that minimum configuration. It would be much cheaper than a change to a new version of Windows. And it does EVERYTHING we need, doesn't it? ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536623)

Give me:

XP
Updated installer / boot loader (loading drivers from USB, etc.)
64 bits ONLY
DirectX 10 & 11
UAC + not defaulting people to administrator
The SATA and SSD support of Vista/7

Don't give me:

Shitty shiny baubles for the UI
Extra DRM that makes my audio card useless
Endless indexing
Pointless bullshit like ReadyBoost

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (1, Interesting)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536681)

Why 64bit ONLY? Given the amount of compatibility problems I've read with 64bit OS's, and some games developers state in the system requirements 64bit is NOT supported.

I agree with the rest, but curious why you're essentially saying "And I want a whole bunch of software to NOT WORK".

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536757)

32bit is a dead end. How much RAM would you stuff into your computers if your OS and applications could use it. The price of RAM is through the floor and nobody buys the stuff because more than 3GB is completely useless in a typical Windows PC due to architecture limitations.

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536763)

The only thing that doesn't work in 64-bit land is kernel-level shit (drivers). You can run 32-bit apps in 64-bit land.

(Yeah, there are some stupid exceptions, I don't give a fuck.)

(I mean only one version of the OS. Obviously we're not cutting out the 32 bit instruction set, or the 64-bit OS's support of 32-bit software.)

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (2, Interesting)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536951)

Why 64bit ONLY? Given the amount of compatibility problems I've read with 64bit OS's, and some games developers state in the system requirements 64bit is NOT supported.

I agree with the rest, but curious why you're essentially saying "And I want a whole bunch of software to NOT WORK".

You mean 64-bit Windows? Sure, it's a trainwreck at best, but so is 32-bit Windows, so it's really not saying much. But I've been using 64-bit Linux since 2006, and it's exactly like running 32-bit Linux, except you can use more RAM.

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (1)

socrplayr813 (1372733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537089)

Not only that, but if 64 bit were the only option, it would have to be at least as well supported as 32 bit is now.

Why 64bit ONLY? Given the amount of compatibility problems I've read with 64bit OS's, and some games developers state in the system requirements 64bit is NOT supported.

I agree with the rest, but curious why you're essentially saying "And I want a whole bunch of software to NOT WORK".

Read? You mean you haven't even used them? Then who are you to complain?

I've used nothing but 64 bit operating systems for the last several years, with my server being the only exception (32 bit processor). I haven't had a single issue related to 64 bit operating systems. The only reason people are still able to complain about these things is because they refuse to adopt the new technology and FORCE manufacturers to support both 32 bit and 64 bit. Just switch already so we can all take advantage of the new stuff.

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (2, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537203)

In addition...

If your user-land level stuff is breaking under a 64-bit kernel, "You're Doing It Wrong [tinyurl.com]"

The only thing that I'm aware of is funky pointer-math voodoo, which you should NOT be even considering touching unless you are deep down in the hardware.

So, point your fingers firmly at the commercial software vendors for this problem.

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (5, Informative)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537161)

I've been using 64-bit Linux since 2006, and it's exactly like running 32-bit Linux, except you can use more RAM.

You can use more than 4gb of RAM on 32-bit Linux, too. All you have to do [cyberciti.biz] is install a Physical Address Extension (PAE) aware kernel:

sudo sudo apt-get install linux-headers-server linux-image-server linux-server
sudo shutdown -r now

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536727)

If you are all upset by having your audio card be made useless, why are you pushing 64-bit only?

There are far more 32-bit x86s in the world than there are tweaky audio cards. Do you have some reason for accepting the obsolescence of the former but not the later(beyond owning the latter but not the former, and being self centered and whiny?)

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (0)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536773)

XP
Updated installer / boot loader (loading drivers from USB, etc.)
64 bits ONLY
DirectX 10 & 11
UAC + not defaulting people to administrator
The SATA and SSD support of Vista/7

They did.

Extra DRM that makes my audio card useless

How does it do this ?

Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537179)

You stupid piece of shit shill. Pull Ballmer's semi-flaccid cock from your anus for 5 seconds.

Run a patch cable from the audio out to the line in on your soundcard on a Win 7 box and see if you can record any audio that's playing.

You can't, eediot. That's called DRM, 'tardo. Fucking shill, bitch.

Duh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536505)

Naturally businesses do not want to migrate to a more expensive OS. XP works.

Re:Duh (2, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536879)

Naturally businesses do not want to migrate to a more expensive OS. XP works.

They all said that about Windows 2000 as well. Most of them ended up switching to XP anyway. This isn't so much about what the customer wants or needs as what Microsoft needs. What they need is to refill their coffers by fleecing their captive market with a new OS... yet again.

Re:Duh (4, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537015)

They all said that about Windows 2000 as well. Most of them ended up switching to XP anyway.

Most, not all. Some still use 2000. And many large business only switched to XP within the past couple of years. This is no surprise. No pre SP1 version of Windows can be trusted in mission critical environments. It's unlikely that any large firm will fully switch to Windows 7 in the first 5 years of its lifetime.

There remains no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7. XP will be around for a good few years yet.

Re:Duh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537235)

No version of Windows can be trusted in mission critical environments.

FTFY.

You know Windows is a bug-infested security nightmare, and deploy it anyway. "Oh, but it can be properly locked down once the kinks are worked out." How the hell do you know? Do you have the code? Why is five years of bug testing necessary?

Nothing about Windows makes the slightest bit of sense. Seriously, five years? That's ten Ubuntu releases: a lifetime! It's like saying you're going to deploy Duke Nukem Forever after it gets a bit more beta testing.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537153)

They all said that about Windows 2000 as well. Most of them ended up switching to XP anyway.

Apples and oranges. The differences between 2000 and XP are not nearly as great as the differences between XP and Vista.

Zombie XP (5, Funny)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536509)

Clearly, Microsoft used worcestershire sauce as an embalming fluid.

Re:Zombie XP (4, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536549)

And ketchup instead of bat blood...

Now they have to wait until the moon is in the Eighth House of Aquarius again to attempt the resurrection

Actually (2, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536523)

That speaks aloud not so much about Vista's "failure". It just SCREAMS about XP success. Really.

Re:Actually (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536683)

Which screams louder: XP's success, or you when a 8-inch nigger cock is deep dicking your ass?

Count me in (3, Interesting)

SlashGordon (1127617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536527)

I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop. Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser. It's not happening on my XP systems. And suddenly, within the past couple of weeks, even IE is freezing. So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with XP.

Re:Count me in (1)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536573)

Compatibility problems is probably part of it but I think what is keeping people on XP is that it works and works well for what most people want to do. Microsoft is really competing against themselves and they haven't provided a good enough reason to upgrade, so most are going to stick with XP for as long as possible.

Re:Count me in (2, Insightful)

DrGradus (1515733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536665)

The problem with enterprise clients upgrading their OS (Vista, Windows 7) or switching to a different OS (OS X, Linux) is that of convenience. What division volunteers to opt for a different OS when they can keep on using XP, when they have thousands and thousands of man-hours of experience troubleshooting common and recognizable problems for their end users in other departments? All OSes will have inevitable issues, especially at the end-user level. Training the rest of the company in a new OS has to be a low priority for any IT dept.

Re:Count me in (1, Informative)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536989)

Not only that, from my personal experience, troubleshooting Vista is hindered by the new 'security' features MS put in.

One of my personal favorites... Acrobat Reader won't install on Vista. Why? The temp setup files are, by default, going to C:\Users\(Username)\AppData\LocalLow

DESPITE the user having local admin (which I'm loathe to give out in the first place, but Vista's a pain in the ass in that regard too) the damn files won't execute there to begin with. So I have to copy them OUT of the locallow folder after the unpack is done but before setup runs to somewhere the user HAS rights. Cancel the setup (which deletes the files out of locallow), and run the temp setup file.

Love it. Seriously. /hork

Re:Count me in (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537083)

One of my personal favorites... Acrobat Reader won't install on Vista.

lolwut? I've installed Acrobat Reader a couple times on both Vista and Win 7 RC. I filed my taxes from Acrobat Reader on Vista.

Re:Count me in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536651)

yea i got an error with win xp so I downgraded to win98.. excellent logic

Re:Count me in (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536817)

Wait until you create a new directory while logged in with admin rights and then try to transfer something from an XP box over the network to your vista box only to get an odd error message indicating you don't have permission to put the file in the directory you just created.

Bastards.

Vista has some issues. Overall I like the interface. Files moving is still slow,and weird rights issues keep popping up.

Re:Count me in (2, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537117)

I don't get your complaint. You are essentially saying that if one user creates a folder, all other users should be able to have write access to it automatically? That sounds like a security issue to me and I'd think the correct behavior would be for the file owner to intentionally give the appropriate "group" and "other" permissions in the event the owner wants to open up the folder. Till then, it should be restricted. I don't use Windows, but the behavior you describe is what I'd expect an OS to do, and sounds like something MS got right.

Re:Count me in (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537211)

No, thats not what he is saying.

He's saying that if you create the folder, and then try to put stuff into said folder from a WinXP share, you get permissions denied.

Note, that he is still performing the operation as the Administrator that created the folder in the first place.

Re:Count me in (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537223)

You didn't understand his complaint because the bug is so stupid that explaining it leaves anyone going "huh?". Basically if you try to copy files from a network drive it will in some specific circumstances tell you that you don't have write access even when you are admin with full access.

Re:Count me in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536839)

You are an ignorant fool to be using a software firewall to begin with and even more so for using Zone Alarm. I've seen this program fuck up numerous times, and the solution has always been removal of this piece of shit.

Re:Count me in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537247)

You are even more fool because you don't realize that most embedded firewalls (office/home routers) are software also.

Go away and hide in your windoz boxen.

Re:Count me in (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536851)

Unless you are absolutely certain you need it, stop running Zone Alarm. The inbound software firewall in XP(SP2+)/Vista works fine, and you probably don't need an outbound firewall.

(If you are using some integrated security package called Zone Alarm, just turn off the firewall part)

Re:Count me in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537279)

Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

Funny, true, but by no means the funniest. Get two women to start arguing and cursing each other out. When shit like, "Stank bitch" and "Trifling tramp" start flying, that's when the real hilarity ensues. Pass the popcorn.

Re:Count me in (5, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536917)

You know what amazes me. Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself. Blue screens were common. Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south. Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what? For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do. You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it. The OS blows and that's that. Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT! Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card doesn't plug in, magically know which network is yours and your password without asking, and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.

I'm out of beer.

I'll be back.

Re:Count me in (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537159)

It's probably related to the fact that you could pick up Windows 95 for about 90 bucks. There was no 'home', or 'home premium', or whatever. There was just a full version for 90 bucks. To get the 'full' version of the newest flavor of Windows 7, we must shell out almost 4 times the cost. This in just a little over 10 years. It's a bit ridiculous when you look at the rate of inflation. The product offers new features, but so do many software products on the market, yet they tend to retain the same costs.

If I'm paying so much more for an OS, I expect much more value.

Re:Count me in (4, Informative)

genner (694963) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537303)

It's probably related to the fact that you could pick up Windows 95 for about 90 bucks. There was no 'home', or 'home premium', or whatever. There was just a full version for 90 bucks. To get the 'full' version of the newest flavor of Windows 7, we must shell out almost 4 times the cost. This in just a little over 10 years. It's a bit ridiculous when you look at the rate of inflation. The product offers new features, but so do many software products on the market, yet they tend to retain the same costs. If I'm paying so much more for an OS, I expect much more value.

The full version of Windows 95 was Windows NT and it wasn't cheap.

Re:Count me in (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537359)

Yeah, but Windows 95 didn't even have a web browser with it. When you get the ultimate edition of windows 7, you get quite a bit more than what you got with Windows 95. Not that you probably need all that, but if you don't need it, you are still free to buy whichever edition you want.

Re:Count me in (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537311)

We never complained because things always got better, not worse.

(Except Windows ME--I think I heard a complaint about that somewhere along the line)

And you had a modem!?!? In my day we had to write our data on a magnetic cassette made for voice and walk it over to it's destination!

We were happy to get those 110 baud half-duplex acoustic modems!

Re:Count me in (1)

StonyUK (173886) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537069)

I'd go for Windows 7 myself, it is so much better than Vista and not so neolithic as XP.

Re:Count me in (2, Funny)

numbski (515011) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537141)

So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with Ubuntu.

There, fixed it for you. :) You really gotta learn to spell that right. It isn't that hard!

Re:Count me in (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537277)

So one small glitch and people immediately downgrade to "trusty" XP ? No wonder Linux has such a low deployment then.

not a big surprise... (1, Interesting)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536551)

... I upgraded to vista on my gaming box (for dx10 and to experiment with it) but on my main box there would be no way for me to do that, due to several things I'm using not having drivers for vista at all (or only for vista32). I guess we'll see how things are with windows 7, if the virtual XP included is going to be able to run XP drivers directly then maybe I would consider upgrading, but I kind of doubt that is likely as if you allowed the virtual box direct access to the hardware then it would be easy for it to bring down the whole system.

al franken (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536557)

al franken is a big fat dumb faggot turd that fell out of some faggots ass.

and the people who voted for him and even dumber faggot turds.

faggots are a disgusting drain on society and need to be done away with.

Re:al franken (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536657)

I think he is biased (and hypocritical), loud, and annoying. I do not think he is funny nor intelligent.

However, I find your criticism to be lacking for various reasons.

The reason is... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536563)

The reason why XP is still strong, honestly, is because people are morons and they are cheap.

Re:The reason is... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536995)

I'm cheap, but after having experience dealing with Vista on a support level, frankly, you can pry my retail copy of XP out of my cold, dead hands.

Success (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536591)

"the most successful version of windows ever sold"

sold (or really licensed) != used

The user base is never the same size as sales or downloads.

Re:Success (2, Funny)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536649)

Though if by "successful" they mean "successful at making their users' lives more difficult one bizarre error at a time", I'd say they're spot on.

Re:Success (2, Interesting)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536673)

I was going to comment on that as well, shouldn't every new OS by ___ developer be more successful than the last? Especially since most PC's are tied to an OS when purchased, there are far more people buying computers now than in 2001, and probably more in 2010 than in 2006. The same could be said for most software in general, Pidgin is more successful than Gaim, WinAmp 3 was probably more successful than WinAmp 2 (going by downloads), which is less successful than WinAmp 5, etc...

Their success is measured in units sold, but if you asked all the people who had used XP for a significant amount of time, then used Vista, I'm sure that "success" would be much different. And a lot of PC users that use Vista, have never used another version so have nothing to compare it to.

Re:Success (1)

lucifig (255388) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537271)

Not surprising. I have stacks of those multi-colored Dell Vista DVDs that came with all those computers I have purchased with XP downgrades.

I suppose those count as "sales" even though they will never see the light of day.

Re:Success (1)

registrar (1220876) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537291)

Indeed. The most licensed OS would have to be Linux. Or maybe BSD. But that's another debate.

I might just write a new license, the General Organism License, and license my own OS under it. By Microsoft's mechanism for counting "use", mine will be the most used OS of all time! Until someone writes a license that rocks can use, I suppose. Hmmm...

Re:Success (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537299)

It's successful if people buy Vista, then buy a copy of XP afterwards. Two OS sales for one computer, that's a win in Microsoft's financial books.

Microcenter still selling computers with XP (1)

linebackn (131821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536603)

XP dead? I think even netcraft confirms it isn't, despite what Microsoft would like. The latest advertisement from the local Microcenter is covered left and right in computers that are listed as being "downgradeable" to Windows XP. This is obviously something people and businesses want or need.

Re:Microcenter still selling computers with XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536747)

And the "No Shit" award goes to....you!

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536639)

Can we do away with the "XP still alive" stories? At this point "everyone" knows that people are going to continue using XP for as long as possible. The other people with Software Assurance or other Microsoft volume licensing programs are going to stay on XP just until they can plan a migration to Windows 7. A small minority will finally make the shift to Linux, and a couple people will slurp up the Jobs flavored Kool-Aid and justify spending significant amounts of money to be locked into a completely proprietary hardware/software "solution".

Re:Who cares? (2, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536927)

Can we do away with the "XP still alive" stories?

Why? I was kind of hoping "XP is dying" would replace the "BSD is dying" joke since the latter is pretty much worn out and needs a replacement.

Re:Who cares? (2, Funny)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536997)

and a couple people will slurp up the Jobs flavored Kool-Aid

Where can I buy this Jobs flavoured kool-aid? I'm so glad all these big tech companies are investing in the flavoured beverage market. Why, I'm sitting here enjoying a cold glass of Google Gulp [google.com] as I type this. They really should make an MS-branded kool-aid beverage though, as long as its not Ballmer flavoured which would probably taste like armpit sweat [youtube.com].

Re:Who cares? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537315)

You know, you had a funny post there, but then I think you took it too far. Nobody wants to taste Ballmer sweat.

It's dead, Jim (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536703)

XP is going to die rather quickly once one or more of the following happen: 2.5TB or bigger hard disks drop below $100 (no GUID partition table support in XP), applications make good use of more than 4GB RAM (XP64 driver support "could be better"), USB3 devices become available in mass quantities (no USB3 support in XP), IPv4 addresses run out and major ISPs offer IPv6 access (IPv6 support in XP is incomplete and lacks a UI), Duke Nukem Forever is released for Windows 7 only.

Re:It's dead, Jim (5, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536945)

Conversely, I wonder how much XP's continued prominence is going to delay any of those incompatible technologies from taking hold?

Re:It's dead, Jim (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537347)

Above all those, I think it'll happen when they release the next round of their biggest games without XP support.

XP is Good Enough. (5, Interesting)

solios (53048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536815)

(everyone who Knows Better will know I'm talking about most users, IT shops, etc - not the technical "merits")

Microsoft is finally getting bit by cultivating and preying on the culture of Good Enough. XP supports current hardware, runs current apps, ISVs are still writing for it. Users are comfortable with it, it handles games well (hey, check out the number of Big Name Games that require DX10), and while it's a security nightmare, most competent shops know enough to be able to keep their machines STD-free.

Vista is a host of new problems, support issues, and sucks on the same hardware XP zips on. Windows 7 isn't officially out yet... and when it is, most IT shops are going to wait. They'll poke it with a stick, sniff it like a dog, and rather it's a genuine improvement or not, they're not going to hop on it until they have to.

XP is the new BSD. It'll be "dying" for the next five to ten years. It's going to take a massive paradigm shift* in computing to get rid of it.

* I don't mean quad cores or eight-way cores or 64 gigs of ram for a nickel. I mean something equivalent to a massive rendering farm running an OS with a pile of APIs that'll securely handle every windows (and mac, while we're fantasizing) application ever written, with a battery life measured in decades. Said hardware would be the size of an iPhone, even easier to use, and you'd be able to buy them in vending machines at bus stations for $1.25. I mean that kind of paradigm shift.

and from all the botnet owners out there (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536841)

... a massive "Thank-you, you dumb bastards."

Why would they? (3, Informative)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536933)

In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs.

That's not necessarily mutually exclusive. There have always been a substantial number of businesses which don't see a compelling reason to upgrade when a new version of Windows comes out. 85% of those machines are used primarily for word processing, after all, something which has been "good enough" for a couple of decades. I worked for a company which was still happily using Windows for Workgroups in 2001. Add the people who always wait for Service Pack 2 and you're at a pretty big percentage of the market.

Some areas prefer Vista. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537105)

I can name you one area of computing that actually does better with Vista: 64 bit audio recording. That's right. When it comes to professional audio, there is more support for 64 bit Vista than for 64 bit XP. There are more drivers, more plugins, more apps that run on Vista64 than XP64. I myself am about to reinstall Vista64 for this exact reason.

Sounds like the OS/2 stories from 10 years ago! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536949)

They said that OS/2 was dead LONG before it actually was! Some still think it's not (see eComStation). Unfortunately, those folks are incorrect.

Vista just not worth the cash (0, Flamebait)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536959)

Vista is not worth the cash. OSX is $129 when Vista is $300+ thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.

On my non-mac PCs I run Linux because it gets the job done. My mac hardware runs OSX (obviously) with a vmware-windowxp. I would upgrade my vmware image to vista if vista was reasonably priced.

Re:Vista just not worth the cash (2, Interesting)

koreaman (835838) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537157)

"OSX is $129"

You realize how ridiculous this is when part of the cost of running OSX is the hundreds or thousands of dollars extra an Apple computer costs?

Re:Vista just not worth the cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537255)

Thousands? LOL
Macs work, the system is elegant and pretty crash-proof (I've done it maybe twice the last year).
No viruses, malware, spyware.
Enjoy your PC. I do run XP on my Mac for website testing. Would never go to Vista or the new thing.

Re:Vista just not worth the cash (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537361)

Well, ignoring your exaggeration for a moment, the better point you could have made is that OS X comes out with a new major version a lot more often than windows does, so people wanting the latest and greatest have to buy more OS X versions in the same time a Windows user upgrades.

Linux still fails. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536975)

A discontinued Microsoft Operating System from 2001 is still more popular than all Linux distros combined. All of the blame for this lies with ignorant users, evil MS business practices, solar flares, global warming, ponzi schemes, and expired milk. Everything and everyone else is to blame. Anyone who disagrees is a paid M$ astroturfing troll.

Soon to be dead (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28536977)

According to unofficial sources, the planned "End of Life" for Windows XP will be in December 21 of 2012.

This is another reason to switch to Linux (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28536999)

With Linux, I know I can still go download updates for some ridiculously old distribution like Fedora Core 3 and that it will still work. It will never be sunset and I'll always be able to download it. Killing off an operating system when it's no longer profitable to keep it alive, despite the concerns of customers, is a reason why community-developed open source software is better.

Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537009)

Forget regular XP, forget Vista, forget 7, heck even forget the Linux. Windows FLP is the stripped down version you want. Doesn't even require a Genuine Advantage check.

What about 2k? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28537059)

Psh - I've been using 2k Pro since it was released. Nine years later I'm just beginning to find a few things here and there that simply refuse to play nice with it (some online streaming video, the latest version of iTunes). It's so solid I could probably count the number of times it's crashed on me with one hand.

I'm about ready to upgrade, but since I can't get XP I guess I'll just wait for 7 and hope it lasts another 10 years.

Reminds me of something that happened (2, Interesting)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537097)

A couple of months ago, my brother has his XP installation is such a bad shape that I had to come over to fix it. While we were walking on the street we started discussing about XP vs. Vista and how much Vista sucks.

After a few minutes a random stranger on the street barges in on the discussion how much Vista really sucked. Yes people, a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on Vista. It simply sucks that much.

Windows 7 will probably be a lot better since it is pretty much impossible to do worse. Vista simply feels like a big step back. It's hard to really describe the flaws of Vista but using it simply feels so annoying.

Personally, I am wondering. What the hell is wrong with Vista? I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe. What made Vista suck?

My first experience with Vista (0)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537139)

I have one token XP box at home and installed Vista Business on our fire station computer and, after working with it for a while, my honest opinion is that Vista sucks major donkey balls. I understand anyone not wanting to install or support it. It's not just that XP is more familiar, it's that it works better. I've never done anything but the simplest tasks without a "you sure you want to do this?" pop up in Vista. Massively annoying.

If Linux worked like Vista it would be the laughing stock of the computer world. Yet Microsoft trumpets Vista like it's some kind of victory for them.

Re:My first experience with Vista (1, Interesting)

Spike15 (1023769) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537357)

Anyone who touts User Account Control as a downside to Vista is certifiably dumb.

First off, if it annoys you that much, you can disable it.

Second, the reason it asks you for permission to continue at "anything but the simplest tasks" is a defense mechanism. It allows you oversight into the internal workings of your operating system. In XP you'd double-click something -- give it permission to run -- and after that it could totally ravage your operating system if it felt like it (assuming that you had the privileges to ravage the operating system yourself, something most home users have as they are local admins).

In Vista, when you give that same program permission to run, Vista sees that it's trying to ravage the operating system, and gives you a pop-up, informing you of what the program is requesting permission to do, and allowing you, with this new knowledge, to allow or deny continued action.

Additionally, the User Account pop-ups offer a convenient way for administrators to allow users to perform tasks normally exclusive to administrators. Rather than logging the user out and logging in as themselves, or exiting the program, using "Run As..." and then entering their credentials, the administrator can simply enter their username and password into the UAC pop-up, and thus allow the process to continue under the pretense of the currently logged in user.

To complain about UAC and say that, that was your reason for switching away from Vista shows that either you don't understand the concept of configuring an operating system to meet your specific usage needs, that you don't understand a good operating system security measure, that you are stupid, or that you were biased going in, and were looking for the very simplest thing to tout as the reason Vista is bad.

Personally I used Vista from the time that it went gold, to the time that the Windows 7 RC came out. I couldn't've been happier. I gamed, I power-used, I tinkered...100% satisfied with Vista.

Is XP really THAT good? (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537143)

Sometimes I wonder how much of the resistance to the new Microsoft OSes is XP being good or the OS being bad.

The truth is, computers are still a relatively recent thing; this is the first major, major OS change in a world largely dependent on the well-being of its various corporate networks; the only similar major transition I can think of is OS 9 to OS X, but Macs weren't (and aren't) as widespread in corporate, industrial, or small business environments.

So how much of this resistance to change is due to the fact that we've never dealt with this kind of major change before in such a massive environment (and don't have the infrastructure to deal with it well), and how much of it is just people clinging to XP?

My Story with XP/Vista (4, Interesting)

sasha328 (203458) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537189)

I've used Vista for a short while and also some users (bought new PCs preloaded).
I, as the support person, hated it because it took me longer to find my way around it. It is not intuitive for people used to where MS used to place things. I'd say it was similar to going from OS9 to OSX in Mac userland. After a handful to users buying into Vista and then coming to lots of problems in terms of figuring out how to use it, I started recommending downgrades for their and mine sanity's sake.
Then I landed a corporate job, and our policy (I set my own, with advice from HQ in the UK) is to stick with XP. My primary reason is that my users are mostly set in their ways, and Vista from UI perspective will be a disaster. The other reason in that some legacy apps will probably cause problems to run. They even cause problems in XP.
So, when I order a PC from Dell, I always specify XP as the OS. It comes pre-installed.
On a side note, I also downgrade Office 2007 to 2003 Pro, again for usability reasons. I have Select Licenses, so I am "legally" entitled to.
Long live XP.

It's just marketing. (2, Interesting)

r0tu (956689) | more than 4 years ago | (#28537293)

Why is it that M$ can simply put out an OS with a new face and a couple of new features and sell it as a new product, yet no one wonders about how they are being limited to their freedom of choice by their obvious attempt to control the market with crap and make you happy to pay for it. I think it's funny watching the monkeys pay for crap they already paid for and love paying way over it's value for it. M$ research is paid by the users who complain their asses off and still use their crap, they exploit the idiots who don't understand technology, and they progress through feeding off other company's devolpments and buying it through the above exploits. If you ask me, I'm happy MS sucks ass and idiots pay for their crap, it keeps proving that real programmers and technology enthusiests know more than multi billion dollar companies and their feeble attempts to pretend they know technology and how it works with people. Perhaps if M$ charged and made money other than from simply forcing us to use techology due to their foothold in the market and started putting out what worked and allowing individuals to improve on the techologies, we could truely say they are a proper and fair monopoly who is really looking out for the people and making things work.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...