×

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!

Windows Vista Enters Extended Support

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the call-up-the-relatives dept.

Windows 330

yuhong writes "On April 10, the second Tuesday of April, Windows Vista will exit Mainstream Support and enter Extended Support. This means that no-charge (free) support will end, no further service packs will be created, nor will future IE versions (such as IE10) be available for Vista. Also, no new non-security hotfixes will be created or be available without an Extended Hotfix Support Agreement (EHSA). This will last for 5 years before support for Vista completely ends in 2017."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

330 comments

What Really Needs Support (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614651)

are the idiot sheeple who use what they do not understand and refuse to learn about. They are the only reason Micro$haft hasn't gone bankrupt.

Re:What Really Needs Support (1)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | about 2 years ago | (#39614663)

Yes, that's accurate - support is for people who need help. In other news, water is wet.

Re:What Really Needs Support (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614679)

"Sheeple" and "Micro$haft"

Just fuck off you 12 year old idiot.

Re:What Really Needs Support (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615147)

"Sheeple" and "Micro$haft"

Just fuck off you 12 year old idiot.

Welcome to slashdot, M$ $hill

Re:What Really Needs Support (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615245)

Are you the AH that logs with a real account to mod down anyone who writes M$?

Well, just that you know, I'm older than you (both in life and here at /.) and you can call me a 12-year old whenever you want... I actually like it better than be called geezer...

If you just know M$ technology, well, you have been warned all these years that the party would be over and the time for payback is coming up on the horizon, dude! You probably still got some 2 to 3 years to learn real IT (i.e. Red Hat). Act now or cry later...

Re:What Really Needs Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615349)

Wow,

Did that touch a nerve or 2?

Crap! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614659)

I'm apparently way behind the times -- being perfectly happy with Windows XP!!!!

I still have an Win 2000 Pro (0, Offtopic)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#39614737)

disk and installed in on a spare latop not too long ago. Shit that thing flies even compared to lxde distros.

Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (2, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#39614865)

I have an old Win98 box with some historical files in poorly-supported legacy file formats (WordPerfect/Paradox/Quattro) that I fire up from time to time. A mere half-gigahertz processor, quarter-gigabyte of RAM, and it's still so responsive it feels like it's anticipating my commands.

Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (0, Offtopic)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#39614879)

Until IE5.5 crashes trying to render www.slashdot.org, that is.

Btw why the heck is slashdot a .org? Did geeknet become nonprofit when I wasnt watching?

Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (4, Informative)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 2 years ago | (#39614919)

I believe slashdot.org was around back when this was pretty much a bunch of nerds in their basement. I.E before the corporate acquisition :)

And to be slightly on topic, I still have a windows 2k disk set, I have both pro and advanced server, windows 98, and windows 95 (including 95b) as well as XP and a Vista beta disk. I don't know why I still keep them (nostalgia??) and I have them installed in VM's, which I've not turned on for years, but I guess it is good to keep them there just in case I need them in future.

Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615103)

now u know what it's like to use linux on almost any machine.

Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (4, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39615251)

>old software and old OSes.

This is why you run a virtual machine and load up whatever software and OS you want from the old days.

It can be tricky, though. Because some of the really old stuff doesn't even expect a hard disk. I unpacked a .zip install of PFS Pro Write on to the "c:" drive in a DOS VM and it /demanded/ that I install to a drive location other than the install drive. Because the developers assumed the destination was a floppy, even with a c: drive letter.

Old software, all the games you missed playing over the years, etc. Load up a VM in a current computer. Install the legacy OS, boot it when you get all nostalgic or need to read really old files, and put it away when you're done. No need for separate hardware. DOS, Windows of all flavors, Linux, BSD, Solaris, OSX if you have an Intel processor, etc., can all be loaded in virtual machines. No need for a separate computer.

And when you're done, just close the VM and go on with your other business.

My favorite Windows for virtual machines is Windows FLP. It's like a pre-stripped XP. I tried 2k, but I wound up ripping DLLs from XP to put into 2k anyway. The same with NT4, which I needed to get DLLs from 2k and XP to just install Opera.

DRDOS 7.03 is out there for free download too. Unfortunately Windows 3.11 says that FreeDOS is "incompatible" and will refuse to run (wrong version). Hrmph. It also helps to have a serial mouse and serial port available for things like DesqView/X which demands an actual serial mouse.

My virtual machine software of choice is VirtualBox. There are others out there, like Xen, KVM, VMWare, Parallels (macintosh). Try them.

As for Win98, giving it any more RAM will be futile anyway. It maxes out at 512MB of addressable RAM. Windows 95 maxes out at 64.

A snapshot I took once to demonstrate the power of virtual machines: http://ompldr.org/vYXgzcA [ompldr.org]

--
BMO

Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (1)

DesScorp (410532) | about 2 years ago | (#39615073)

disk and installed in on a spare latop not too long ago. Shit that thing flies even compared to lxde distros.

There are a couple of anti-virus vendors that support Win2K with current versions, but no browsers that I know of (again, with current versions). Otherwise, I'd be perfectly happy using Win2K on some boxes.

Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#39615153)

Opera [opera.com] claims to support it:

Minimum configuration
Windows 2000 on a Pentium II
128 MB of RAM
20 MB of free disk space

Re:Crap! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#39615001)

Same here. Since all I need it for is to run Outlook 2003 for our corporate crap, all I need is XP in a VM. Just some 40GB I can copy to whatever machine I want and run it with a single kvm command.
Now if only calendaring and tasks would work in Thunderbird with Exchange...

Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614661)

No patches == more zombies?

Will be interesting (and possibly annoying) to see if this end of patches is accompanied with a surge in botnet based spam and such.

Re:Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614691)

Nah. No worries there, not even criminals want to run windows vista :)

Didn't RTFS? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614695)

Also, no new non-security hotfixes will be created or be available without an Extended Hotfix Support Agreement (EHSA).

Also, nobody uses Vista anyways. It's either XP or Win7 all the way.

Re:Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | about 2 years ago | (#39614705)

Yep, and it wouldn't surprise me to see someone from Microsoft go home and write the critical exploit for the flaw that'll never be fixed. If your OS no longer has patches available, you're running too old an OS.

Re:Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (5, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 2 years ago | (#39614733)

No non-security hotfixes is not the same as no patches. They'll patch security flaws, but not add any features.

Re:Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (1, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | about 2 years ago | (#39615021)

I'm pretty sure that the average user stopped seeing new features added sometime around win98 or 2000. Other than UAC in vista, I can't really point to a feature that my mom uses in win7 that wasn't there in 98.

Re:Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614987)

It's fascinating how the mere mention of something "Micro$haft" induces posts far more moronic than they even usually are on Slashdot. Seriously, if you really thought patches were over for Vista, what the hell do you suppose 5 more years of support meant?

Re:Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614823)

no NON-SECURITY updates during extended support phase.. however security-related fixes will continue as usual for another five years.

My message to you, Laura: (-1, Offtopic)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 years ago | (#39614665)

Dear Laura, I am writing to you to say that I miss you very much and I love you. Every day without you is so sad, please you are the only thing I care about in the whole world. Let's get married and live in Jamaica forever together and I will make pancakes or omelets for you every morning and kiss you and call you cute names. Please call, Bobbbbb.

Re:My message to you, Laura: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614689)

I don't know why the above is rated -1. It's certainly more interesting than TFA.

Re:My message to you, Laura: (-1, Offtopic)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | about 2 years ago | (#39614781)

Why you little...! You'd better start using Gamemaker before you truly make my cheeks boil as such never before! Clones such as you need to return to Gamemakerdom right this minuteness and stop spreading such misinformation!

Re:My message to you, Laura: (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 years ago | (#39614797)

Just ignore this jerk Laura, he's some idiot stalker psycho, but I am a blac belt in all five major martial arts so I can protect you from him and from all the rightwing racist vijilantes that creep all over the horrible racist capitalistic hellhole that is the U.S.A.

Re:My message to you, Laura: (-1, Troll)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | about 2 years ago | (#39614885)

Who exactly do you think I am? I'm someone who dances with my bootyass as I please like corn on peas! You have no chance of standing up to my true ferocity!

So why not just switch to Gamemaker!? It is futile to lie to yourself by denying Gamemaker's true greatness. Return to Gamemakerdom right this minuteness!

Re:My message to you, Laura: (2)

Psychotria (953670) | about 2 years ago | (#39614807)

I thought at first this was some kind of weird troll, but I checked your posting history and apparently I was wrong.

Long live XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614677)

And yet my company, a major Fortune 500 member, lives on with XP

Re:Long live XP (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614717)

in two years and your company will either be running botnets or migrating to a newer version.

all xp updates end april 8th, 2014

Re:Long live XP (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#39615337)

That'll be interesting to whatch. What comes first? Massive migration from XP or April 2014?

Will the currently old computers that run XP be replaced by them?

Re:Long live XP (3, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 2 years ago | (#39615013)

I'm sure there are a lot of Fortune 500 companies still running XP. The biggest reason to upgrade by far, as has always been true for Windows, is for newer hardware support, or when security patches stop. Actually, I'm sure almost no one actually upgraded even to Windows 7, they just bought a new computer with it.

Euthanize XP (0)

backslashdot (95548) | about 2 years ago | (#39614731)

When are they going to put a mercy bullet in XP .. I go to major corporations and find that they are STILL on XP .. living off the Extended Support contracts. The IT departments apparently just cant justify moving to Windows 7 or Vista.

Take XP off Extended Life Support.

Re:Euthanize XP (4, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#39614749)

When are they going to put a mercy bullet in XP

You're implying that you're doing it a favour killing it? There's a reason it's still widely used. It works. I have yet to find something I can't do on the system. Every application runs on it save for the few that Microsoft's marketing department have deemed unsuitable like DirectX 11.

You shoot the race horse AFTER it breaks a leg and becomes useless, not while it's still in good racing condition.

Re:Euthanize XP (4, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#39614813)

This is assuming you are in the racing business, and not in the business of selling equestrians.

Re:Euthanize XP (5, Funny)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 2 years ago | (#39614861)

True, but in this case everyone except MicroEquus, is in the business of using horses. Some of them are employed as brewery horses, others are employed as race horses, but as long as they work fine, there is no need from horses from MicroEquus.

You can of course switch to the free Llamas, but they're so unfamiliar.

Re:Euthanize XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614817)

+1 Practical

Don't euthanize the able-bodied (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#39614835)

I am writing this on a laptop (TabletPC) running Windows XP. It's a 5-year-old machine, but aside from the battery life getting low (a $40 fix I'm considering, for convenience) it does everything I need a laptop to do. It runs *office. It runs Chrome. It runs Manga Studio (my main drawing program) with full support for the built-in stylus/digitizer. I have no reason whatsoever to replace it. I'm familiar with Windows 7; I work with it at the office. If I had a desktop PC instead of an iMac, I'd probably use W7 on that. But I cannot think of a single feature of W7 that I would benefit from on this computer, and I can think of several factors (speed, mostly) that argue against upgrading. Windows is just an OS: software that acts as an intermediary between my applications and the hardware. WXP does that job quite adequately. To "put a mercy bullet in WXP" is nothing more than deliberate, willful, unnecessary obsolescence.

Re:Don't euthanize the able-bodied (3, Insightful)

SpryGuy (206254) | about 2 years ago | (#39614895)

Let's see... Windows 7 is many times more secure than XP, has a better UI with better usability, better handling of wireless networks, better handling of external projectors, can be upgraded to IE9 (vastly more secure than IE6/7/8, even if you don't use it)...

XP needs to die. It really, really does. Win7 is better in almost every single way. Even if you only consider security issues, XP needs to die, and XP users should update to Win7.

I use Win7 at work and at home. Every time I have to go back to using XP, it's like trying to work with mittens on, or use stone knives and bear-skins. It's so ancient and obsolete and difficult to use I can't even stand it. Win7 is just better in every single way I can imagine.

Re:Don't euthanize the able-bodied (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614991)

I strongly disagree with the 'better usability', Win7 was a very painful transition for me (and probably everyone else who makes heavy use of the keyboard). I made heavy use of shortcut keys in WinXP - my computer-geek friends were amazed at what I can get done within a few seconds with half a dozen key strokes. After being forced to upgrade to Win7 (with the purchase of new laptop) I was mortified to learn that many of these shortcut keys had been removed. It takes me eons (by comparison) to accomplish the same tasks I could do in WinXP. This is also true of Office2007/2010.

Considering the new learning curve required, I made the jump to Linux (Arch + E17). I had been dabbling with Linux for several years (particularly on servers), and this was the final push I needed for the desktop. If I have to learn something new, may as well be something with long-term prospects and that I have semi-control over. However, I still make regular use of WinXP within a Virtual Machine - particularly for running incompatible apps.

I know I'm not paying for it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615109)

If you're willing to sign the checks and pay for all the upgrades (not just the OS, but legacy software which may not run on the newer OS), I'll be more than happy to upgrade. But looking at my own budget, then the answer is no. Everything currently in use still works fine for what it does, and it's kind of stupid to spend money I don't have in order get newer software to do what I'm doing already.

Not to mention hardware issues. Who's going to update all the drivers and such for printers and similar equipment connected to the network? How good is the legacy support on that end? It's a step backwards to break things that work now.

As for security? Most security issues tend to be PEBKAC, provided stuff connected to the internet is locked down fairly well. Maybe hard to deal with on a large scale, but on stand alone machines or small networks it's fairly quick to figure out who's causing the problem.

I think others making business decisions would answer the same way.

Re:Don't euthanize the able-bodied (3, Interesting)

JSG (82708) | about 2 years ago | (#39615159)

>Every time I have to go back to using Windows, it's like trying to work with mittens on ...

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Don't euthanize the able-bodied (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 2 years ago | (#39614931)

I've got a 7yr old laptop that came with XP/SP1 on it and I'm getting ready to move it to Win7 permanently. During testing, the improvements that Win7 brought to it were impresive since XP/SP1 has accumulated lots of cruft/bloat from all the security patches/updates that have been applied over the years. Yes battery life isn't getting better due to age but usability does and from my standpoint, that's all that matters.

Re:Don't euthanize the able-bodied (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614985)

Max out the RAM and upgrade it to Windows 7. I've found that W7 is faster than XP on every PC I've tried it on, so long as it has enough RAM.

Re:Euthanize XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614853)

Every application runs on it save for the few that Microsoft's marketing department have deemed unsuitable like DirectX 11.

The marketing department wasn`t responsible for the complete rewrite of the graphics driver model as well as the subsequent re architecture of DirectX.

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#39614889)

This shows how microsofts model of making people pay to beta test backfires, because no one wants to spend money on anything not 10 years old. No one in the linux scene is bitching because they stopped maintaining kernel 2.4 (came out around the same time as XP).

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614967)

Nonsense. If Fortune 500 companies had huge numbers of old Linux workstations, they would be waving cash at RedHat to buy "extended support". Linux gets away with relative short lifecycles only because it's primarily used in a server role with hands-on administration.

(These companies have a 'software subscription' with Microsoft & are buying Windows 7 and downgrading it to XP. The issue is logistics of upgrading, not license cost.)

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#39614905)

I have yet to find something I can't do on the system.

Drop admin privileges without breaking every program in existence?

Run a version of IE that isnt dog slow?

Also, not enough shiney [not sure if joking]

Re:Euthanize XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614935)

Drop Admin privileges? That's pretty easy these days, and (oddly enough) we can thank Vista for it. I'm serious, in the last 5 years, running Limited User on XP has become a non-issue.

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 2 years ago | (#39615035)

Well, that was one thing MS got right... about 10 years too late... but right nonetheless.

Of course, Vista shipped with such moronic security features such having to ask permission multiple times to rename an icon on the desktop, but they managed to get it right with Windows 7.

Re:Euthanize XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614953)

Reason to upgrade? Oh, I don't know but maybe running 64 bit applications or needing more than 4GB of ram perhaps?

No, 64 bit xp doesn't count and has never counted. Try to find drivers for it.

For those of us in a domain, win7/vista allows SMB2 and a slew of other enhancements for group policy, ad, etc. (on a 2k8 domain)

Re:Euthanize XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614957)

Try running 64 bit apps. That is one thng you will find it can't do.

Re:Euthanize XP (4, Informative)

bertok (226922) | about 2 years ago | (#39614963)

Lots of things don't work on Windows XP. Just off the top of my head I can think of:

* Windows 2008 R2 RSAT Tools -- you can RDP to a server instead, but that's not always possible or recommended.
* PowerShell Active Directory module -- very handy, but doesn't work on XP at all.
* You mentioned DX11
* Internet Explorer 9 or later
* Location APIs for HTML5 apps
* Proper IPv6 support (XP has some experimental support, but in practice it's not very usable)
* Any 64-bit only software like the SharePoint 2010 design tools -- I know there's a 64-bit XP edition, I used to use it myself, but few others did, and support for it by hardware vendors was never good and even less these days.

Sure, these are all small things, but they add up. To get an XP machine to "work" you need about a bazillion hotfixes, add-ons, extras, drivers, and even some scripts. On top of that, these days it's getting hard to buy a machine with "only" 4GB of memory, but that's the most XP supports, unless you're a masochist and want to run an unsupported decade-old 64-bit OS instead of just going straight to Windows 7 64-bit like a normal person.

Sure, its leg might not be broken, but it's limping pretty badly.

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#39615149)

On the other hand, MS Services for Unix is free on XP.... so I guess it depends on what you need to do.

In my case, I have no need for RSAT tools, the PowerShell Active Directory module, DX11, IE, HTML5 apps, IPv6, or 64-bit applications (though it would be nice sometimes to have 64-bit MATLAB). But I do use MS Services for Unix. I'm sure I'll figure something out whenever I get a new PC with Windows 7 on it, but there's certainly nothing compelling me to actually upgrade.

The biggest thing going for Windows 7 (versus Vista) is that there's no compelling reason to DOWNGRADE :)

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#39615345)

I wouldn't put it on a new machine, but if you have XP-generation hardware there's no need to upgrade. If it was a free upgrade I'd probably suggest everyone go Win7 but I wouldn't spend money on it. And for a lot of people what it does and the hardware they have is enough.

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 2 years ago | (#39615055)

Well, every web developer on Earth woud love it if Microsoft kicked every version of Windows that won't receive IE10 off the web. Yes, that's unreasonable but with Microsoft not believing in backports we get to support IE8 until XP has negligible marketshare, which will probably still be another decade. Having to code against that POS (and the only marginally better IE9, which will live for another decade after IE8) means a lot of redundant work and expenses.

It's been "spend half your time coding against the spec and the other half ironing out bizarre IE bugs" for far too long now. By now we shouldn't have to worry about whether an element "has layout" or how to set static dimensions on dynamic content so that IE won't do weird things when we want a float to overflow its parent.

Of course the best option would be to give up on Internet Explorer altogether and spare us all the horror that is Trident. Not like that would happen, either. I have little doubt that Microsoft will keep supplying us with half-baked IE versions with quirks that we need to support for decades because the users can't update IE without buying a new copy of Windows.

Re:Euthanize XP (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about 2 years ago | (#39615095)

If you are a developer of applications (including web developers that have to test how their application looks in IE7), you'll see better where I'm coming from. Also, it isn't very secure. Its not very convenient for users either, because if they have upgraded from XP they are likely still on Office 2003 or something.

Re:Euthanize XP (2)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 2 years ago | (#39614759)

The words you're looking for are "good enough", because that's what XP is and Microsofts main problem with it.

Who gives a flying fuck? (0, Troll)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about 2 years ago | (#39614779)

I mean, really?

Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614805)

I'll take a crazy stab at it: People that still use Vista?

Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614825)

The two of them?

Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (3, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | about 2 years ago | (#39614873)

The two of them?

I know you're joking but there is a boatload of people out there running Vista... just about everyone I know who bought a laptop before W7 was released (excluding the people who are adept enough to install Linux, XP or W7 themselves) are running Vista. These people don't even know they're running Vista; to them it's just a computer and as long as they can write their emails, look up stuff on the internet, play FreeCell and occasionally write a document they are happy and oblivious to the fact that they're using Vista.

Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614915)

Oh man....that is hilarious. You exaggerated by saying only two people use Vista, implying that not many people use it (when you know more than that actually do). You have insulted Microsoft (or as you probably say in a much funnier way: Micro$oft) by putting it down in such an original manner. If you weren't anonymous I would tell all my friends ("the two of them" as you would say in order to razz me!) about you and your joke. Salut!

Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 years ago | (#39614965)

One of them is my mother.
She only uses the web browser (Firefox and Yahoo for email) and occasional type up a list for one of her clubs.
She always is "losing the Internet" usually by minimizing Firefox.
Next week I'll be visiting her to upgrade to Ubuntu. I think the Unity interface is perfect for her. She only needs one or two buttons.

Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | about 2 years ago | (#39615079)

The two of them?

There are more Vista desktops than Linux desktops out there.

Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614811)

I mean, really?

People who have Vista, and apparently you,,,

current os vista - next os will not be M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614821)

My next operating system choice will not be Microsoft.

I purchased Vista in 2008. This is way too early for extended support.

If MS wants to cut support for Vista - fine, just give vista customers a free bounce to 7 and support is fixed.

7 is what Vista should have been anyway and 7 should have been a free upgrade for Vista users.

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (4, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 2 years ago | (#39614881)

The longevity of XP was an accident. It was a good time to live in, but they won't make that mistake ever again. Don't expect support to last as long as the XP support for 7 either.

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | about 2 years ago | (#39614913)

There's no valid excuse for not upgrading Vista to Win7. The upgrade is fast and easy, and you get more than enough improvements to justify the minor cost.

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614949)

~100 bucks certainly is, especially considering that vista SP2 on decent hardware isn't as bad as you claim it to be.

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (2)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 2 years ago | (#39614997)

Minor cost? I guess you will pay for the half dozen XP machines I support for family and friends, because non-nerds see no point in paying for something that works in their eyes. Heck, I have one remaining XP machine and see no reason tho shell out good money that I can use for more useful things. You talk about 100$ as if it were chump change. It also assumes your old peripherals will work, where printers and scanners are the worst players. At work we have an expensive multifunction printer whose Vista/7 drivers suck compared to the very reliable XP drivers. At least there were drivers available. Replacing peripherals that stop working because of an OS upgrade cist money too. Sure this problem probably is moot when talking about a Vista to 7 upgrade.

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615025)

Got $120 I can "borrow" and never repay?

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (1)

leathered (780018) | about 2 years ago | (#39615045)

Minor cost? An upgrade to Win 7 would be half of the original cost of my netbook. And for what? A new browser that I don't use. Or maybe the a nice UI which is irrelevent when the only icons I use are the ones for Chrome and occasionally Word. I'd have a much better experience if I spent that money on more RAM or an external monitor.

Believe it or not people are sick of the upgrade treadmill. The consumer operating system of the future is one that boots straight into a web browser from which all applications will be accessed. And people certainly won't expect to pay good money for it.

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615211)

Its called ChromiumOS...

Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 2 years ago | (#39615097)

I guess it means that Windows 7 really is Vista SP3. I'm also noticing how each version of Windows has less service packs (it peaked with NT 4.0). NT 3.1 = 3 SPs, NT 3.5 = 3 SPs, NT 3.51 = 5 SPs (first widely deployed release), NT 4.0 = 6 SPs (this is when NT went mainstream on servers), 2000 = 4 SPs, XP = 3 SPs, Server 2003 = 2 SPs, Vista/Server 2008 = 2 SPs, and finally 7/2008 R2 = 1 SP (so far).

Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614829)

This means that no-charge (free) support will end,

Windows support is only ever free if your time has no value.

Re:Obligatory (2)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 2 years ago | (#39615083)

Windows support is only ever free if your time has no value.

And assuming there's an actual answer to your question. I would imagine the only support issues MS can actually solve are those that can be easily answered with a Google search or two... at least based on my experience.

They should just cut the foreplay... (1)

idbeholda (2405958) | about 2 years ago | (#39614975)

And end support for Windows Vista altogether. Let's face it, even "upgrading" from Windows XP to Vista is basically the same thing as "downgrading" to Windows 3.11 For Workgroups. Except Windows 3.11 had far fewer issues that the user had to contend with.

Re:They should just cut the foreplay... (2)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#39615049)

What they should do is sell a cheap upgrade from Vista to 7 for some really low price like $10, make it available to anyone with a Vista license, then say "sorry, we're washing our hands of this".

Re:They should just cut the foreplay... (2)

idbeholda (2405958) | about 2 years ago | (#39615061)

Exactly. Vista is a slow-motion trainwreck. I use the phrase "slow motion" because that's how it works, even after tweaking it.

Waiting for XP to go... (2)

Kawahee (901497) | about 2 years ago | (#39615019)

I'm a developer at an ISV. Personally, I am waiting for XP to go. Microsoft has some great technology (WWSAPI, SQL Server 2012 LocalDB) that looks like it will solve some of the problems we need to solve with our application, but it's not available on XP. (Technically WWSAPI is, if you're willing to pay for the support contract.)

As it stands, while XP is still supported (mainstream, extended or otherwise) and we have customers on it we are unable to use these new technologies.

In the context of my job I don't think Vista is any different from 7 in terms of the technology available and the support effort.

At home I find 7 to be superior to XP and Vista. I don't think Vista fills any niche, XP has the 5-year-old-low-powered-device market, but anywhere else really should be using 7.

Where are my Ultimate Edition extras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615143)

Since support is ending, I'm sure there will be a flurry of activity to release the promised Ultimate Edition extras now, right? Microsoft would NEVER promise something and completely fail to deliver it in the entire lifetime of the product would they? *drops pin, crickets chirp*

Re:Where are my Ultimate Edition extras? (1)

KlomDark (6370) | about 2 years ago | (#39615311)

What are these? Other than Tinker, a couple card games, and DreamScene? Are there others that were promised? Cause I was able to get the previously mentioned ones from Windows Update.

Waiting on Intel actually (1)

nicoleb_x (1571029) | about 2 years ago | (#39615291)

I've been planning on upgrading my main computer with new software and hardware but I'm waiting for Intel to let loose those new 22nm wonders. I've been pretty happy with Vista and a 32nm quad core so I'm not going to upgrade until I get some serious reward for my coin.

Weird timing (1)

KlomDark (6370) | about 2 years ago | (#39615301)

I say what I'm about to say after using Windows 7 x64 for a while, and liking it.

But...

  I got a used Core2 Duo laptop off ebay that came with XP. Went to upgrade it to something that would take advantage of the 64bit cores, but I realized I was out of MSDN licenses for Windows 7 x64. But I had all my Vista x64 license keys remaining for some reason. ;) Dreaded the thought, but went ahead and put Vista 64 on it, and put on all the services packs, etc.

I am very surprised at myself saying this, but I am actually liking the UI on Vista better than Windows 7. Heresy, I know. But with SP2 on it, it's (finally!) solid and it's doing everything I need it to do. (C#/Visual Studio/MVC 3/Entity Framework development...)

I really think the sidebar (introduced in Vista, ripped back out in Win7) should have been longer lived. I did not like it at all when I first encountered it, but now I am just loving it for some reason. (Maybe I just hate change??)

Of course, two weeks after I do this, they end of life it. Dammit...

Make money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615315)

my friend's half-sister brought home $18168 the prior week. she has been working on the internet and moved in a $467500 home. All she did was get lucky and try the advice shown on this link (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/3Jswg

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...