Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Microsoft Extends XP For Low-Cost Laptops

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the stayin'-alive-stayin'-alive dept.

Windows 388

Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft says it will extend the sales of Windows XP Home to OEMs by several years, but it's not in response to the SaveXP petition. Microsoft is supposedly making the move in part to ensure that Linux doesn't dominate the market for certain types of 'ultra-low-cost' laptops. XP will be available for OEMs until June 30, 2010, or one year after the availability of the next client version of Windows, whichever date comes later. This greatly extends the earlier XP deadline of June 30 of this year (which was an extension itself), and means XP will potentially be installed on new computers nearly a decade after its original release. The author of the article suggests that the post-June 2008 release of Atom-based laptops encouraged Microsoft to extend XP, even though Intel says Atom can support Vista. Intel also claims that 'Moblin' Linux will be available on Atom-equipped mobile devices starting this summer."

cancel ×

388 comments

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

"can support vista" (4, Insightful)

Tanman (90298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957802)

"Can support Vista" and "Can support Vista for 5 minutes" are the same!

5 minutes? (4, Funny)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958844)

Boot time does not count!

It's really sad... (1, Insightful)

feranick (858651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957840)

... to see a 7 years old OS making the news because it will be extended to 10 years! It's like saying Ford extending the life of their 1965 sedan into the 2010. I mean it works, but I wouldn't define it as an achievement of human progress.

Re:It's really sad... (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957878)

but I wouldn't define it as an achievement of human progress.
It's evidence of the exact opposite: a lack of progress.

Re:It's really sad... (5, Insightful)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958486)

Hmm. It might also be a recognition that the upgrade treadmill is no longer providing much in the way of new value for the end users, compared to the nineties and early this century.

Vista is often criticized for its lack of killer features to justify its increased greediness. I personally think the UI's improvements are handy, but if I could have them in XP, I'd be just as happy. And I certainly couldn't justify spending $1000 more on a document handling laptop just so I can run Vista vs XP. Linux resource requirements seem to be relatively stable compared to MS operating systems. Really, only media-intensive work (eg transcoding) and "blockbuster" games are even capable of significantly loading a modern machine. For many tasks, people are now preferring to take their Moore's Law profits in money rather than performance.

Another factor might be that the GHz wall and relative difficulty of parallel programming means that there's just no perceived performance benefit to typical tasks from the newest hardware, and the benefits can be cancelled out by suboptimal software design (see again Vista benchmark results). Due to this lack of progress, people are choosing (for the first time since the eighties?) that cheaper hardware running less inefficient software is a better use of their resources.

Re:It's really sad... (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958764)

Actually, Linux's requirements seem to be coming down in some areas. KDE4, despite having way more eyecandy is actually supposed to required less resources than KDE3. Compiz runs fine on my Celeron 1.6 GHz with 512 MB of RAM and Intel GMA laptop. Why can't Vista, with even less eye candy run at respectable speeds? You could easily have most (all?) of the UI upgrades that Vista offers on XP. Some of them you may not really want, like the completely redesigned control panel (why do they have to do it every time?). But it could all easily be done. There isn't anything revolutionary that Vista does.

Re:It's really sad... (0)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958778)

And I certainly couldn't justify spending $1000 more on a document handling laptop just so I can run Vista vs XP.

$1000 _extra_ ? WTF ? For US$1000 you could buy *two* laptops capable of running Vista for "document handling".

Linux resource requirements seem to be relatively stable compared to MS operating systems.

The oldest PC you can usefully run Vista on (with minor upgrades), dates from around 2000. With a functionally equivalent Linux distro, you might be able to get away with slightly less upgrades, although the cost saving would be insignificant. Of course, since most people replace their PC every 3-5 years, it's a moot point.

Seriously. The only argument against Vista that's less relevant that hardware requirements, is DRM.

Speak for Microsoft. I see great improvment. (4, Insightful)

inTheLoo (1255256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958824)

It might also be a recognition that the upgrade treadmill is no longer providing much in the way of new value for the end users, compared to the nineties and early this century.

Recognition? It's a downright admission to market failure. This is not something that can be said for free software though.

The last seven years have provided all sorts of great things for free software users that were stuffed into the same modest hardware requirements. Interfaces that were functional and stable have become beautiful without excessive bloat. There are all sorts of productivity increasing features. Printer support has gone from decent to phenomenal. Media playing and transcoding was very hard to come by seven years ago, now it's common and very good. Network integration in both KDE and Gnome is astonishing and this feature alone would make it impossible for me to consider running XP outside of Parallels or some other Virtual Box. Then there are all the specialty applications. The exponentially growing Debian tree has applications for just about any purpose you can think of and it reflects an even larger body of free code.

Free software is not standing still either. People have new itches and they are scratching them so things are not going to slow down anytime soon. Besides better interfaces and specialty applications there are basic communications and sharing needs that people have. I imagine greater speech recognition, better wireless communication in general, better automation of wireless file transfer and synchronization based on location and a host of other digital life uses. Better and cheaper displays will create all sorts of information surfaces and free computing will be the first to really fill the smart house. People have made a good start with X10 type stuff but the ease of porting to ever smaller and more powerful platforms finally will make these things common.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958736)

Eh.

All that lack of progress goes away if you turn off UAC all together.

That got rid of all my frustrations (well except that my Nvidia drivers are locking up the system about 1-2x per week, and that XP is still faster for gaming); and except for gaming, I don't spend any more time in XP.

Vista has vastly improved boot caching/defragging of some sort as well; I get to a usable desktop immediately after logging in, and clicking firefox as soon as I can opens a window within about 3-5 seconds, as opposed to in XP where I have to wait 10, sometimes 20 seconds to do the same on my spankin-fast computer.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958784)

Well, you have the opposite experience I and others I know do. Upon logging in to Vista, or waking from sleep, or waking from hibernation, it waits for about a minute with a black screen, doing absolutely nothing. Before I can do anything. This happens on a few Vista machines I have seen, and doesn't seem to be related to any specific piece of software that is installed.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958846)

That's progress? For Windows, maybe, but barely even that. If it's true progress then why are they having such a hard time selling upgrades? XP sold very very well as an upgrade to it's predecessor.

Re:It's really sad... (5, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957904)

Microsoft are doing the right thing(extending XP sales) for the wrong reason(competing with Linux in the cheap laptop market). XP may very well be the last Microsoft OS that many of us will use. It's reasonably tweekable, fast, stable, supports a shitload of wide-ranging applications, and it dosen't have DRmware integrated into it(Windows media player dosen't count :P ) -- remember that network utilization problem that Vista had while playing media files? That's like turning on the kitchen sink only to have the toilet flush! Lesser of two evils...and calm down, all you Microsoft-haters out there: WINE exists for a reason :)

Re:It's really sad... (2, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958048)

Microsoft are doing the right thing(extending XP sales) for the wrong reason(competing with Linux in the cheap laptop market).
It's got to be a tough one for marketing. "On the one hand, it'll improve profit margins. On the other hand, it's not evil... Isn't there another way to achieve the same effect?"

Re:It's really sad... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958288)

and it dosen't have DRmware integrated into it(
How does this help XP? It just doesn't support certain DRM protected media types as well. That doesn't make these will be playable like "omgitjustworks!" This unsupported media will instead not be playable at all.

Anyway, this isn't a big deal for me, as even if I'm using Vista, I'm not using DRM protected HD videos. As little as I'm supporting iTunes.

Re:It's really sad... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958890)

And what happens to media that nobody can play? Yep, it vanishes.

I'm with you on this, but for a different reason. (4, Insightful)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958296)

What made Linux good was not that it competed with Windows (quite successfully despite the press and the critics of both OS's). Windows techs did learn to start community websites to help each other, so Linux user mindsets have permeated the Windows side of things.

Be happy, Microsoft might be an evil entity or a tool of evil men, but at the very least, many of its users found Linux or BSD or even Darwin because of this. By the same token, competition has been good for the Linux geeks. If the arena full of evil tyrants wasn't there, they would've never received the same press they got now. Had it not been for gaming, some geeks might have never discovered they were geeks.

Microsoft was a stage in evolution, if one seeks to see it as such. They put lots of cheap computers into the homes of those who would've been too inept to make use of the various Unices. Be happy for it, is what I say. Competition has been great for Linux, and would you truly wish to have the OS that is the world's biggest target?

If those in the community decide to fight against Microsoft, they will become what they kill. Microsoft became what they killed (IBM in 87 anyone?). Don't strive to kill Microsoft's joy. Microsoft is sinking themselves. Just keep doing what we've all been doing. It works far more than aggressively fighting for ground. Remember Sun Tzu: "Any warrior can fight a battle and win, but a master wins the war before the battle is fought." Try it. Microsoft is doing admirably at shoving their own foot in their own mouth. All the rest of us have to do is just help the "lusers" in our lives learn to use something else, and make that transition less painful than it would've been for them when many of us got into Unix.

You don't have to be a "guru" or a "wizard" or "3l33t" to help someone less technically inclined. Who knows, they might be able to help elsewhere.

Re:I'm with you on this, but for a different reaso (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958642)

Linux's success most likely is entirely due to the way windows ran itself as a business... there have been lots of geek spawned projects to make homebrew software for their computers etc, but none of them took off the way Linux did. why? IMO the predatory practices of Microsoft of promising every feature under the sun in some version of OS software from them for less, than the other companies could provide killed off real commercial competition for windows (except apple, but apple has sold 150 million ipods, which arguably has kept the company not only afloat but with plans to expand their technology offerings for perhaps decades to come(eg: iphone etc))

because companies trying to compete with Microsoft tanked, and because windows took decades to deliver a fraction of the feature sets they promised, and often wound up making various OSes they sold to be very buggy, and very unstable..

well, that's why I started using open source, because windows was horribly horribly broken on the network side, and 'fixes' from say novel cost way too much, and at the time FreeBSD was a more straightforward installer than Linux (1996/1997)

Now Microsoft has pathetic security, because they never designed windows to be secure, so I don't even dare put my windows machines on the net anymore(nasty problem with a rootkit that I'm still cleaning up)... Vista is supposedly better with security, but the hardware requirements are heavy... the only way they could have made it worse is to render the entire desktop with Ray Tracing (perhaps windows 7 will 'offer' that feature, or windows 8)

but yeah with Intel pushing new power saving chips, for portable computing, it's either stick with xp or put windows mobile on it, and since the atom goes to 1.8 ghz, its kind of a waste to use windows mobile.

Re:It's really sad... (3, Insightful)

Frigid Monkey (411257) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957926)

... to see a 7 years old OS making the news because it will be extended to 10 years! It's like saying Ford extending the life of their 1965 sedan into the 2010. I mean it works, but I wouldn't define it as an achievement of human progress.
Just because the model T was built for twenty years doesn't mean that all other innovation and progress came to a grinding halt.

People know how to use XP, and how to fix it when it's broken. Who needs an upgrade?

Re:It's really sad... (3, Interesting)

feranick (858651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957986)

We are not talking about upgrades here, but new purchases. If you are using XP in your current PC than you are perfectly right. But if in a 2008 brand new PC computer I will get an old OS, than you are wrong, because I am not upgrading to anything. 2008 hardware needs a properly designed 2008 OS.

Re:It's really sad... (3, Insightful)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958282)

We are not talking about upgrades here, but new purchases. If you are using XP in your current PC than you are perfectly right. But if in a 2008 brand new PC computer I will get an old OS, than you are wrong, because I am not upgrading to anything. 2008 hardware needs a properly designed 2008 OS.
And Vista is _not_ it. The key words come right from your own post - "properly designed".

In my opinion the only thing Vista was properly designed to do is strip money from customers.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

feranick (858651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958854)

I never meant to say that Vista IS the replacement. For me Linux is.

Re:It's really sad... (4, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958312)

2008 needs exactly the same OS that 2000 provided, a means by which applications communicate with hardware. A clear easy to follow interface for end user to launch those applications as well as to find files created by those applications.

On top of that it needs to be actually secure, table and reliable. It would also be nice that it be readily repairable and not self destruct at random intervals.

The only real difference between 2000 and 2008, it should have the latest drivers properly implemented.

So all I want is an OS that I will be able to use for the rest of my life, without being extorted for upgrades, without being forced to use applications I have no interest in, without being subjected to inconveniences due to ill conceived anti-piracy methods, without bugs the will never get repaired because you should buy the latest version that has those faults supposedly repaired, without having to pay more for detailed help files and, most importantly without wasting hardware performance on the OS that should be used for applications.

I gotta tell you that those 8 years have taught me one thing for sure and certain, M$ ain't the company to provide the required solution but the have certainly demonstrated time and again the problems caused when those 'withouts' are replaced by 'withs'.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958648)

The hardware went into a bit of a different route that was used in 2000 - in 2000 there were not many computers having multiple cores, which became a standard nowadays.

By properly designed operating system I imagine improved support of all of my cores in my system, so, parts of the application can be processed simultaneously. Of course, that depends both, on the operating system (kernel) and the program itself, and true and genuine multi threading in applications is in the future.

And, I at least expect to FULLY SWITCH to 64-bit architecture, since that's several years old innovation by now.

Re:It's really sad... (1, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958816)

The operating system I installed on my desktop machine in 1994 is just as able to
exploit the current multi-core CPUs as today's freshly minted operating systems.
These problems aren't exactly brand new. They've been around for a LONG time, even
on PC based systems.

If you OS from 2000 can't handle multiple processors then it's just crap.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958856)

Taking advantage of multiple processors is something the application needs to do: the OS has been doing all it can since 2000. No reason for an OS upgrade in this case, though app upgrades might be nice.

The 64-bit architecture seemed not to help very much. Most application run slower (the code itself is larger, and there's no compensating increase). The only substantive benefit to a 64-bit architecture is the ability to handle more than 4GB of memory. Apparantly 32-bit XP can do that if tweaked - any one application is limited to 3GB, but you can run several.

The compelling feature of a new OS would be what Microsoft failed to deliver in Vista: more security without inconvenience. Windows 7 might well deliver this, if Microsoft sticks to their plan to deliver backwards compatibility only through emulation/virtualization, allowing a true ground-up redesign of the kernel for non-intrusive security.

Perhaps unlikely to happen, but it would be a real reason to upgrade.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958132)

People know how to use XP, and how to fix it when it's broken. Who needs an upgrade?
By 'upgrade', do you mean an OS that break in new, unimagined ways that people don't yet know how to fix?

Re:It's really sad... (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957968)

"It's like saying Ford extending the life of their 1965 sedan into the 2010."

Not really.
Software isn't hardware, and just because the public is groomed to accept drastic OS changes doesn't mean that we need to replace systems that work sufficiently well for their intended purpose. Refinement instead of replacement can avoid all sorts of problems such as, well, Vista. Given the MSFT market share, they could have gradually improved XP and made even more money than they have by dumping capital into Vista.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

feranick (858651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958022)

Quote: "they could have gradually improved XP". Question for you: Did they really?

Re:It's really sad... (1)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958560)

Quote: "they could have gradually improved XP". Question for you: Did they really?
And the answer: yes they did :)

For proof, look at the change list for XP-SP1 and SP2, and SP3 as well when that gets released later this year.

Re:It's really sad... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958280)

Could just be the inevitable car analogy. They never get old.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958742)

"they could have gradually improved XP" and missed out on selling old computer owners on buying the 'newest' 'latest' OS... why do you think directx 10 is vista only?

to force gamers to go vista, and get newer faster hardware, true pc gaming is a small target audience, but they've always been the most obsessed with performance. they spend more on their computers and more often than any other demographic. so even if they're a small demographic (in the millions) loads of companies are trying to get the gaming enthusiasts money.

True vista wasn't widely accepted and there are loads of people who don't like vista, and meanwhile Microsoft is busy coding windows 7 (to be released in 2 years are they nuts?)

Linux can gradually improve over time in a way a commercial OS doesn't benefit from. It's actually worse for the bottom line to keep using the same OS for ten years. although 'upgrade' sells are a small target as well, 'new' oses offer Microsoft a chance to make new deals with oems on pricing, even if they had a long term contract on XP pricing. Since a company that may have had an advantage 7 years ago when bargaining, now has to deal with 'anti-trust' policies that now prevent Microsoft from making unfair deals with OEM vendors... they probably make more money selling vista to OEMs than they did selling XP.

What really shocks me is that no OEM dared to invest in making Linux or BSD code into a viable desktop ala what apple did to make their 'current' OS. Are the major OEMS afraid of what might happen if people had a choice instead of being locked into windows?

Re:It's really sad... (4, Interesting)

FoolsGold (1139759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957994)

I'm honestly confused as to why Vista was designed to require substantially higher system requirements and consume more resources. It's obvious XP is still the platform of choice because there's crap-all that Vista does which justifies the extra requirements. Yes there are some nice features such as easy resizing of Windows partitions and superfetch, but that doesn't excuse the hangups I feel when pushing my system hard because it's got less to play with than it did with XP.

Did Microsoft really think people would just stop using older, but perfectly functional hardware and buy new gear? Were they totally nuts? They could have had so much more success if Vista was designed to scale well with various grades of hardware. But it doesn't without a lot of work, and you could just as easily save yourself the trouble by slapping on XP (or Linux). Let's hope for their sake Windows 7 will have a readjustment in their perspective.

Re:It's really sad... (5, Insightful)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958162)

I'm honestly confused as to why Vista was designed to require substantially higher system requirements and consume more resources.
So that the consumer would be forced to buy new, expensive hardware. That accomplishes two goals:
1) The hardware manufacturers make more money. Then then repay MS by not supporting other OSes.
2) The cost of the software remains low in relation to the cost of the total system. People won't notice a $200 OS buried in $1000 of hardware. But in $200 of hardware another $200 stands out.

Big wake up for MS (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958544)

The consumers no longer just do what you want them too! Shock! Horror!

Most people are more than happy with XP and have no desire for Vista.

Then there's also the emerging market of the Eee PC style lower end devices. XP can run on these, but not Vista.

If I was an MS shareholder I'd be asking HTF MS marketing got so out of step with the market.

Re:It's really sad... (1)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958574)

But most of Ford's cars today are still doing well. If they made a car that was slow (barely would go 80 MPH) was not fuel-efficient (got like 12 Miles/Gallon) and was expensive (Twice as much as the competition) it would be right for them to extend support for cars that were good. That is just was MS is doing, Vista is slow, not using resources well along with expensive. XP was relatively fast, didn't seem to hog as much RAM and was cheaper.

This shows Microsoft's priorities (5, Insightful)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957854)

It seems that Microsoft made the decision to extend XP based on an attempt to prevent manufacturers switching, after previously ignoring pleas from the end-users to extend XP. The issue seems to be that they're more interested in selling software (such as Vista) even to people who don't want it than they are in selling software to people who do want it; Vista helps to drive the upgrade train, and XP doesn't, so until the low-cost laptops came off the ground continuing XP would presumably have been seen as a huge evil from Microsoft's point of view. It's the manufacturers that Microsoft are trying to please, not the manufacturer's customers (note that retail versions of XP will no longer be available), and only because they had a real alternative (Linux in this case); this strategy may end up backfiring in the long term, because if retailers are prevented from listening to their customers as long as they stay with Microsoft, they may eventually have enough incentive to change, so as not to lose revenue.

Re:This shows Microsoft's priorities (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957942)

I think this is the only thing Microsoft could have done to keep the customers who want these new low power computers. I don't think it'll backfire because people will still buy computers with XP since it's familiar. Microsoft had to choose between two competitors: Linux and XP. They chose the evil they know because as long as people use some Microsoft software they tend to stick with it when it's time to upgrade.

Re:This shows Microsoft's priorities (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958008)

Microsoft would rather sell SOME software than NO software. If even a small portion of stranded XP-less consumers (and businesses) switch to Linux/free software, Microsoft loses out on multiple fronts simultaneously: lost license fee for the OS, lost cost for Microsoft Office, games, and other software, and lost ad revenue from live.com search results -- what Linux browser sets the default search engine to live.com?

Re:This shows Microsoft's priorities (4, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958060)

That's the bottom line: the "end user" is not Microsoft's customer, the hardware manufacturers are.

Re:This shows Microsoft's priorities (3, Insightful)

Asprin (545477) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958860)

I disagree completely.

Microsoft's customers are and always have been, developers. Why? No business goes out and puts in a Windows network because they think it's great - they do it because they need to run XYZ application that runs their business, and *IT* requires a Windows network.

Remember the monkey boy.

Future Niche. (3, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957858)

As hardware progresses does this mean in a way that Windows XP could become the new Windows CE [wikipedia.org] ??

Re:Future Niche. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22957930)

Does that make Vista the next WindowsME??

Re:Future Niche. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958014)

Don't be silly. Vista was the next ME before it was even released.

Re:Future Niche. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958344)

That's hilarious! Very original!!!!

Re:Future Niche. (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958864)

It takes a special kind of marketing excellence to name an OS "Wince". I'm still amazed by that.

Roadmap (0, Redundant)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957868)

So when are they going to put out SP3 (and maybe SP4)?

I for one am happy about this.
Vista was not rushed out the door and still has issues, even after SP1.

WinXP is "good enough" (though not necessarily secure enough) in ways that previous version of Windows haven't been and Vista doesn't do much to change that.

Re:Roadmap (0, Troll)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957906)

What issues does Vista have after SP1?

Re:Roadmap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958064)

What issues does Vista have after SP1?
Ummmmm, it still sucks, astroturferboi?

Re:Roadmap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958358)

You mean other than the insane hardware requirements, the general slowness, requiring special hardware to be able to do HD (even though there's no technical reason why it should be required), and no benefits over XP unless you count the machine running slower?

Oh, other than those, no issues.

Re:Roadmap (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958600)

It runs rather fine on my dual core Pentium @ 1.6Ghz.

Re:Roadmap (0, Troll)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958812)

You mean other than the insane hardware requirements,

A Ghz-class CPU, 1GB RAM and a $30 video card is "insane" ?

the general slowness,

Doesn't seem any slower than OS X. Or Ubunut, for that matter.

requiring special hardware to be able to do HD (even though there's no technical reason why it should be required),

It doesn't require special hardware to do HD. You're lying.

and no benefits over XP unless you count the machine running slower?

UAC, search, better utilisation of hardware resources. That's just off the top of my head.

Re:Roadmap (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958492)

I have seen no change in my system after SP1 (although I admit I haven't copied files around). I can't tell if SP1 did anything, good or bad.

What it's about (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957872)

Is keeping their product in front of the customer.

This is going to make a lot of people unhappy. Lots of OEMs are going to have a little chat with Microsoft about this whole death-of-XP thing I think.

If Vista runs well on a MID I will be shocked. If it ran well, the things would ship with Vista and we wouldn't be having this 8-year-old OS discussion at all since these devices weren't even announced until Vista had been out for a year.

Re:What it's about (1)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958868)

What is funny, is they are still going to have to provide drivers for all the new hardware that isn't invented yet in order to support low end laptops for the next few years. Looks like they won't be disbanding their XP dev team quite yet..

several? (0, Redundant)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957876)

several, a- Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many.

How did 2008 to 2010 become "several" ?

Re:several? (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958108)

several, a- Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many.

How did 2008 to 2010 become "several" ?

Easy ...

... or one year after the availability of the next client version of Windows, whichever date comes later.

You're looking at 2015.

Self Deprication? (2, Interesting)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957902)

Is this a self admission that Vista didn't do what they thought it would? What happens when Windows 7 doesn't ship on time? Will they come out with XP SP5? <donAsbestosSuit />

Re:Self Deprication? (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958792)

Well, there -was- an NT SP6, soo....

cool... (3, Informative)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957918)

Microsoft is supposedly making the move in part to ensure that Linux doesn't dominate the market for certain types of 'ultra-low-cost' laptops.
so...Microsoft is afraid of Linux?

wow. this is good news!

Good for my wallet. (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957922)

I was looking seriously at buying a new laptop before the June cutoff, so I wouldn't have to manually install XP over Vista. Now I can wait just a bit longer.

Re:Good for my wallet. (1)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957976)

Now I can wait just a bit longer.
Assuming you intend to buy an ultra-low-cost laptop.

Microsoft needs to get their act together (0)

The Beast Beneath (1267068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957996)

Hopefully Microsoft will get things right with Windows 7. So this won't have to happen with Vista. Microsoft has screwed up enough with Vista. It's time to learn some things from Linux. lol

Market Presence (3, Insightful)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958028)

Microsoft sees a need to maintain a presence in the low-cost hardware market.

Vista isn't going to do it and Windows Mobile is less than satisfying. XP is Microsofts only offering that can be squeezed onto machines that otherwise might have been exclusively Linux powered. I think this sucks for developers more than anything in that effectively Microsoft is asking them to support two platforms.

NEW SERVICE PACK NOW? (1)

MilesNaismith (951682) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958056)

XP has become increasingly tedious to INSTALL due to the raft of patches needed afterwards. No hope for a re-spin call it SP3 it seems.

Re:NEW SERVICE PACK NOW? (3, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958092)

Patches needed afterwards? Guess you've never heard of slipstreaming.

Re:NEW SERVICE PACK NOW? (1, Interesting)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958794)

"Slipstream" is a somewhat noxiously overblown word for "updated installer image", don't you think? And all the while you scoff at those who don't care to complete the mind-bogglingly long number of steps needed to "slipstream" basic updates into an installer [winsupersite.com] , Linux users have cast off that albatross entirely and simply install the right versions the first time around [debian.org] .

Windows still needs some really remedial rehabilitation of its package management "capabilities", and what you lot call "slipstreaming" just sounds like some long-abandoned ritual to us. I've even heard that Windows guys still primarily use the "executable installer" method of software distribution -- is that actually true? It sounded made-up to me when I heard it; probably just an exaggeration from some half-cocked Linux zealots!

A shift in the market, not in MS. (4, Insightful)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958068)

They are keeping an OS alive because it runs on less powerful computers. Nothing new. They developed Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs to do the same thing. But, in the case of WinFLP, it was to ensure that people that buy Software Assurance on a computer can continue to pay for that assurance even after their hardware reaches "Legacy" standing.

They didn't release it to the public because it wasn't as effective as a full desktop version of Windows (although if you've used it you'll see it's more user friendly than Starter Edition) and because not enough people were buying new computers that couldn't run what they saw as the current OS.

Now with a shift towards lower powered ultra mobiles, people are buying computers that aren't really suited to run what they see as the current OS.

They are already maintaining a way to run a supported version of Windows on PCs going back to P233 with 64MB RAM because they saw a market driven reason for it. Extending the availability of XP Home just means they are recognizing a similar market in consumer space now.

OLPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958074)

Please tell me OLPC isn't going over to the dark side. It's what I think of when I hear "ultra-low-cost laptops".

I know that MS already had some team bring up WinXP on the XO [arstechnica.com] with help from OLPC.

Change is overrated (1)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958106)

I don't understand the rush for change to begin with...I mean, let's use the term EXTREMELY loosely here, just for a moment...but why is there always such a rush to put out new iterations of an old system? making changes and forcing people to relearn everything....Now for that phrase I referred to earlier

why fix what isn't broken?

Sure, XP wasn't PERFECT, but Vista is such a major departure from previous iterations of Windows, and its been met with such negative response from the general public...Obviously Microsoft sees this and is slowly admitting it by constantly slipping in more and more of these extensions. A lot of people don't want to switch over and Microsoft has been losing a lot of customers to Apple and Linux as a result of its push for change in its customers.

When you come out and tell people that you're eventually going to cease support on a product they love, and only support a product they don't want, and tell them "Upgrade or die", they're going to jump ship. Computers have moved into a generation of people that don't like change, and aren't willing to change.

Re:Change is overrated (2, Insightful)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958552)

That happens when you don't ask them to change for 7 years. People get comfortable.

What's suprising here? (2, Informative)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958122)

Microsoft says it will extend the sales of Windows XP Home to OEMs by several years, but it's not in response to the SaveXP petition. Microsoft is supposedly making the move in part to ensure that Linux doesn't dominate the market for certain types of 'ultra-low-cost' laptops.
Read: We know that this is what the consumer wants, but to hell with them. We are doing this in the interest of stifling competition, not in the consumer's interest.

Will they extend Mainstream support further? (2, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958126)

Mainstream support for XP is set to expire on April 14, 2009 according to http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&x=16&y=12&C2=1173 [microsoft.com] Which is obviously before June 30, 2010. Does that mean they'll extend Mainstream support as well (I'd assume so). If so, it'd be the second time they've extended support (originally 5 years after release, or Dec 31, 2006).

In 2010, everything will be a "low-cost laptop!" (1)

blumpy (84889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958164)

In 2010, every vendor will be selling machines, regardless the of latest and greatest gear at the time will be as "Low-Cost Laptops", just to avoid Vista!

IPv6? (1)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958176)

What about XP's current TCP/IP stack limitations? Do Microsoft intend to add IPv6 in a service pack (which would, if i understand correctly) require the replacement of the whole networking system?

seems like the kind of thing they've 'accidentally' messed up in the past..

Re:IPv6? (1)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958316)

Scratch that. Apparently support for IPv6 was added in SP1, and i've just never used it. Oh wells..

Some Clarity in the Post (4, Informative)

brainee28 (772585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958184)

I think it needs to be made clear the following: XP Home will be available for budget laptops, such as the EEE PC, OLPC, Cloudbook, and Intel's Classmate PC. XP Home and Pro for standard vendors is still being taken off the market as of June 30. This is only for budget laptops; Dell and the other OEM's won't be carrying XP after June 30. Some of the AP stories and writeups on other websites are making it sound like they've gone back on their statement, and XP will be available again. This is to prevent Linux from getting a foothold in the budget laptop game.

What about XP PRO? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958200)

It is important to note, that this does not mention the fate of WinXP PRO.

Re:What about XP PRO? (1)

KookyMan (850095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958744)

I noticed this. XP Home is not what the power users are going to use because of missing features. So this isn't as good of news as everyone thinks it is.

Shows how much MS cares about users (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958204)

So if you're the average user petitioning MS to save XP, you basically get told to suck it. But if you're an OEM and threaten to carry low-cost Linux laptops, MS rolls over for them.

Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling as a user, doesn't it? A warm fuzzy feeling in your a--. If there was any residual doubt that MS prizes sales over users, now you know.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time (5, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958224)

Microsoft is starting to understand the lesson the market teaches - much like IBM did some time back. Remember when IBM came out with PS/2 machines with Microchannel slots? They offered to license the Microchannel technology to any manufacturer that'd pay them back royalties on ISA technology. That was a non-starter; those other manufacturers decided to follow VESA and introduced another dead architecture.

That's a long way of setting some background; what I'm trying to say is that when a company that's enjoyed success for years decides that their success is due to some special insight or knowledge - the market corrects them. IBM thought they were the leaders in PC technology and made a turn and marched off into the distance. They didn't realize that nobody followed them until much later.

For IBM, this was the thing that changed them from being the leaders in PCs to an also-ran PC company in just a few short years. In their pride, they dictated how the future of PCs should be and ignored their market. Too bad for them; they're completely out of the PC business now.

For Microsoft, Vista is their "Microchannel" moment. They lost sight of the need to satisfy their customer's needs and decided to make some fundamental changes (baked in DRM) on their own. Now they're enjoying the result of that decision; sales of Vista are far, far lower than they expected. And those sales figures don't include all the new machines that came with Vista that have since been upgraded to XP. I know that Vista will never touch any PC I own or control.

Since there's a few smart people at Microsoft they've extended XP's life a few more years. A decent choice; better to sell the obsolete OS than lose more customers to Linux. This won't fix the real problem, though - Microsoft needs to decide which customers they're actually serving. If it's the end user then the next version of Windows is critical; another DRM infested release will spell the end. If they're actually serving corporate interests then it doesn't matter; they've failed already and we're just watching the death throes.

While Microsoft plays their games, Linux continues to evolve and improve. This is a golden opportunity for Linux on the desktop...

Re:Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to ti (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958480)

This is all well and good, perhaps. And yet, despite it all, Microsoft is doing extremely well both in selling Vista and as an organization, with Q1 '08 profits up more than 20% over Q1 '07- client sales alone up 25%. Vista is selling, and selling well, although perhaps not as well as marketing 'droids would like, but so what- it is selling well. Neither Microsoft, nor Vista is dying, Slashdot commentary to the contrary. If you think Vista is a failure in any sense of the word, you really need to reexamine the realities of the situation.

10 years after release? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958226)

That's how long it takes Microsoft to get an operating system into usable shape!

People are still waiting for another service pack or two before going to vista.

Microsoft stuck in the middle.. (2, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958242)

They have to keep XP going for the low cost laptop market otherwise Linux will dominate that market, but if they keep XP they're not making any money from Vista.

Sounds like their chess pieces are going to get taken whatever move they make.

This is why they are failing over and over (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958252)

They are ditching a successful product like Xp (most successful among the big selling ms stuff at least) for failing vista, but also playing dirty to prevent linux from getting low cost market.

get a load of that.

in which business school they teach students to ditch successful products and to only use them to prevent competitors from getting a slice of some low cost market ?

leave that aside, what kind of logic can justify this ? if you have something successful, you stick by it and make a pillar out of it.

no sir. ms doesnt do that. because they are much involved in their years long legacy of playing dirty, screwing customers AND partners alike and that. in recent years, they have also shifted much attention to 'preventing competitors from being successful' rather than trying to be successful themselves.

excuse me, microsoft lovers in slashdot, im no fanboy of anything, but this picture isnt a neat picture and there is nothing about it to even try defending against any criticism.

Re:This is why they are failing over and over (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958738)

what kind of logic can justify this

Monopoly logic.

There goes my lab's purchases of Windows (5, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958260)

We've been using WinXP or Win2K on dual-boot machines (I have one of the few single-boot WinXP machines) due to problems with excessive CPU cycle usage by WinVista - and had to request WinXP "downgrades" for a number of new PCs with dual and quad core CPUs for our statistical genetic analyses we run.

If they only do this for "low-cost" PCs, then we'll have to completely move away from the Office suite and go to OpenOffice instead. Be a shame, but if they don't want us to use Windows, that's their problem.

Too late for me (5, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958262)

I'm buying one (or two - must think of mom) Asus eee PCs. I've never felt so good about buying a computer in many years. I was very close to buying it online the past week but finally I decided I'll buy it locally in Helsinki.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the problems I had with formulas in Word for Mac on my brother-in-law's iBook. Nice machine but OO.o works much better for me - and since it runs on Linux, and I always wanted a LIGHT notebook... eee PC just won out as the logical option for my on-the-move needs. If I could run a Matlab equivalent on it (and I will definitely look into that) this little gem might replace one of my desktops as well.

By the way, this is my first experiment with Linux as a desktop OS. I have a router with CentOS at home, but as my WinXP-running desktops die out, I'll be replacing them with Linux. Sorry MS, no Vista for me.

Re:Too late for me (1)

ILikeRed (141848) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958404)

If I could run a Matlab equivalent on it

Check out GNU Octave [gnu.org] , there are even books on both [amazon.com] .

Re:Too late for me (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958658)

Hey, that's a great book! Thanks for the heads-up.

I just found out there's a Linux version of Matlab. Problem solved.

Re:Too late for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958502)

wxmaxima / maxima , octave,

but by then... (1)

thekm (622569) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958270)

...Linux will continue its steady progress. It's already better than Vista by most measures, and they're selling their old OS to compete. By the time that they stop offering XP, I think (hope) that the choices for OEM's between XP and linux will clearly favor linux.

Vista is a placeholder (5, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958292)

They released either too soon, or too late.

If we assume that business customers are where MS's real profits come from, then Vista is a fuck-up of epic proportions. I don't know of ANY business that plans to "upgrade" to Vista. Why would they? A five-year-old PC will run XP and basic office-type appliations at full-speed (especially if those machines have 1GB of RAM or more). What does Vista offer as an improvement? Yeah, the security is better, but in a corporate setting, those machines are (hopefully) locked down via Group Policies and permissions anyway.

It's just impossible to justify in a corporate setting. Upgrade all the machines, to get performance rougly equal to what you already have. Oh, and lets not forget that quite a few peripherals don't and WON'T have Vista drivers.

Now, the next version of Windows will come on a hardware-upgrade cycle for a lot of companies, so it will probably sell better. But even then, I imagine that many companies are planning to stick with XP until it's just no longer possible to run it on new machines. And that could be a long time.

Re:Vista is a placeholder (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958690)

"Now, the next version of Windows will come on a hardware-upgrade cycle for a lot of companies, so it will probably sell better."

          What? This makes no sense -- business hardware upgrade cycles are not 0 upgrades for several years, then all the machines the next year, and so on. If they use a 5-year cycle, they would replace roughly 1/5th of the machines each year. Businesses are not "upgrading" to Vista because it is expensive; Vista needs 2-4GB of RAM, a gaming video card, and a dual core to get decent performance? Forget about it. Businesses, espeically big ones, buy machines by the hundreds to thousands... XP (and any Linux distro, which is what's scaring Microsoft) runs fine with 512MB, integrated graphics, and a single-core system. That saves SERIOUS money.

rock and hard place for MS (4, Interesting)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958406)

no great shock here.

Eee Pc opened the floodgates - the future looks to be low power, SSD, minimal RAM long battery "laptop" style devices that will never run Vista in a million years.

This is about containment of Linux - as this is the OS of choice for this new breed.

I bet MS is shitting bricks over this, I have an Eee and the Linux flavor on it is very nice indeed. I still have not put Ubuntu on it.

I keep hearing that 70% of PCs in a year or so will be laptops, if 50% of them are low power devices then that 1/4 to 1/3 of PC in a few years that will not run Vista - you can kinda see why they are doing it.

However, when customers are told that they can only have Vista on their desktop or XP on their laptop they will be annoyed. Even more when XP is being phased out but new SPs are available for the "laptop" version of XP. I can understand what MS is doing, but I think it can (and will) go wrong for them in many ways. Interesting times ahead.

Re:rock and hard place for MS (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958838)

Do you just not think, before posting, or are you genuinely delusional ?

Eee Pc opened the floodgates - the future looks to be low power, SSD, minimal RAM long battery "laptop" style devices that will never run Vista in a million years.

The Eee PC is one iteration of "Moore's Law" away from being a decent Vista machine. So, less than 12 months from now, given how long it's already been out.

I keep hearing that 70% of PCs in a year or so will be laptops, if 50% of them are low power devices then that 1/4 to 1/3 of PC in a few years that will not run Vista - you can kinda see why they are doing it.

Even the cheapest "normal" laptops today are quite capable of running Vista.

What about retail sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958414)

What if I have purchased system with Linux installed, and later want to install XP on the machine.

Will I be able to buy a copy of XP for this system?

I think there is an interesting issue of bundling here. XP may have to continue to be available at retail also.

What exactly do they mena by "ultra-low?" (2, Funny)

gsgleason (1241794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958534)

I wouldn't call a celeron 2.4Gz "ultra-low-budget," exactly.

my core issue with this move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22958632)

As prices fall you'd expect to see cheapo laptops with dual core processors coming pretty soon (easily in the next two years). Last I head (which, I'll admit, was several years ago) XP Home only supports one proc/core. I wonder if this is intentional... "switch to vista and double your low end cpu with no expensive hardware swaps!" etc.

Another article Re; Asus XPeee (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958654)

Interestingly, this one reports that XP will be available for 1 year AFTER the release of Windows 7 which makes its launch around June 2009:

Microsoft said it would allow system vendors to preload the Home edition of Windows XP on ULCPCs through June 2010, or one year after the next version of Windows becomes generally available
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207001662#community [informationweek.com]

what would Microsoft do if UMP's went ARM or PPC (4, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958832)

Think about it, some of these low power devices are easily in the power/performance range of ARM and PowerPC chips and a couple already run them on the very low end. The Nokia N800 for example. There's no way Windows XP can run on these and Windows CE is not up to competing against a full OS like GNU/Linux. So what could Micrsoft do and why for instance don't these vendors like Asus bring out ARM and/or PowerPC versions of devices like Eeee PC? They both have MMU's now-adays and are clocking up to the GHz range and GNU/Linux and OSS port pretty easily to these platforms. Getting drivers might be alittle more of a push but isn't the ball for Linux drivers rolling along nicely already?

IMO, it would shut Microsoft out of this market and give the hardware vendors the profit margins they can build a business on. Bulking up the devices so Windows XP will fit on them and taking money from Microsoft to put Windows on them is not a sustainable business. Microsoft will pull the plug when they've limited choice to Windows and Windows only and then pull the plug on the payola for being a Microsoft supporter.

Microsoft is not a hardware vendors friend and they should know this and be doing something about keeping control of their own destiny. IMO.

LoB
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?