Microsoft Extends Life Of Windows Xp

[Guest Reimar]

Microsoft Extends Life of Windows XP

Microsoft Corp. said Thursday it will keep selling a version of Windows XP for use on a new breed of low-cost computers for at least two years longer than the older operating system will be available on mainstream PCs.

The software maker said Windows XP Home will be available through June 2010, or for a year beyond the release of the next version of Windows, for computers like Intel Corp.'s Classmate PC and ASUSTek Computer Inc.'s Eee PC. Those machines have smaller hard drives, less memory and slower processors than most Windows computers sold today, and most would have a hard time running the bulkier Windows Vista.

Microsoft had planned to stop selling most versions of XP at the end of June 2008, with exceptions for small computer-building shops and PCs sold in developing countries. But surprising demand in developed countries for what it calls ultra-low-cost personal computers prompted Redmond-based Microsoft to extend that deadline.

source: neowin.net

[hp8000]

Good news as "Vista" is the second biggest failure after "Me" from the Redmond's company. I hope we will be able to get security updates for at least 5-6 years as well.

[Plus]

I don't get this Vista-ME comparison.

Windows ME was basically souped up Windows 98 while Vista is a complete rewrite of the previous version. ME was killed by Windows 2000, if not for that, they'd eventually made it as stable and reliable as 98 SE. Vista will have a head start of several years before the next version is out, the hardware will catch up by then, and XP will slowly fade away.

Win 98 was initially as resilient as 2000/XP and lasted for many many years as a system of choice for pirated copies.

Though I will stick to XP for now, the next computer will have to be Vista, I just try to postpone it as long as possible.

[hp8000]

I don't get this Vista-ME comparison.

They are both total crap, as simple as this.

PS. Oh, and don't ask me to elaborate as you will find complaints to read on the net who will give you months of reading.

I've tried Vista on a very recent Compaq laptop, it was a nightmare to find drivers and the integrated camera never worked. And on top of all the system always asking me if I allow to do this or that drive me nuts.

Typing "vista crap" in Google returns only 613,000 answers.

Edited April 6, 2008 by hp8000

[MarkBKK]

Good news as "Vista" is the second biggest failure after "Me" ...

Why does everyone forget Bob?

[britmaveric]

Vista is hands down the best OS from MS yet. I love it!!! No Blue screen in over a year - cant say that about XP or previous versions of the OS.

[Mighty Mouse]

Vista is hands down the best OS from MS yet. I love it!!! No Blue screen in over a year - cant say that about XP or previous versions of the OS.

I can say it. I've never had a problem with XP.

I never had a problem with 98SE either, mainly because I did regular house cleaning maintenance on my operating system.

[sjaak327]

I don't get this Vista-ME comparison.

They are both total crap, as simple as this.

PS. Oh, and don't ask me to elaborate as you will find complaints to read on the net who will give you months of reading.

I've tried Vista on a very recent Compaq laptop, it was a nightmare to find drivers and the integrated camera never worked. And on top of all the system always asking me if I allow to do this or that drive me nuts.

Typing "vista crap" in Google returns only 613,000 answers.

You have no idea. Vista is not only the most stable and secure OS ever build by Microsoft. It actually rocks when using the right hardware.

Nothing comes even close.

People who compare Me with Vista simply have no clue, they don't know what they are talking about, as the differences between the two are overwhelming.

[hp8000]

You have no idea. Vista is not only the most stable and secure OS ever build by Microsoft. It actually rocks when using the right hardware.

:D

Wonderful OS if you have to make your hardware compliant. I've installed and tested Vista for one week on a brand new recent laptop and it was enough to go back to XP, and win2k on my desktop PC as Vista would not install anyway.

If Vista is such a great OS, can you tell me why Windows 7 will be released next year just a little bit than 2 years after Vista still considerated by many as a beta version ?

[sjaak327]

" Vista is such a great OS, can you tell me why Windows 7 will be released next year just a little bit than 2 years after Vista still considerated by many as a beta version ?"

Because Microsoft has promised (years ago) that they would have a three year cycle for desktop operating systems. Vista was just way too late, something they apparently will not do with windows 7. It's relase in 2010 has nothing to do with the quality of Vista as an OS.

"Wonderful OS if you have to make your hardware compliant. I've installed and tested Vista for one week on a brand new recent laptop and it was enough to go back to XP, and win2k on my desktop PC as Vista would not install anyway. "

There is no need to make your hardware compliant. I run vista as media centre on a 4,5 year old PC, works great. The lack of hardware drivers is not the fault of the OS.

[hp8000]

The lack of hardware drivers is not the fault of the OS.

Knowing that ALL hardware are built following the M$ rules your comment is surprising. If speaking about GNU/Linux I could understand. And even with GNU/Linux most recent and older hardware are recognized and working mostly out of the box.

Anyway, keep using the weirdest OS on the market if you like it.

[britmaveric]

And if you think MS will release a new OS next year - I can sell you some swamp land to build a new thai airport on. MS I repeat never meets schedules - always a year or more behind.

[slackula]

You have no idea. Vista is not only the most stable and secure OS ever build by Microsoft. It actually rocks when using the right hardware.

That might be true, but it is still crap.

It's like saying the last model of Trabant was the best car the company ever made; probably true, but who on earth wants one?

[sjaak327]

You have no idea. Vista is not only the most stable and secure OS ever build by Microsoft. It actually rocks when using the right hardware.

That might be true, but it is still crap.

It's like saying the last model of Trabant was the best car the company ever made; probably true, but who on earth wants one?

But why I wonder is it crap ? It has many advantages over XP, not only behind the scenes (Or under the hood). What exactly is crap about visa ?

I mean, I have been using it for years (starting from early beta) and it's clearly an improvement over XP in more then a few ways, and not only under the hood. THe graphics looks much much better, some parts of the OS and the location of the files is more logical. Media Centre has been vastly improved.

Nah I don't know why I still bother to be honest.

[Crushdepth]

I can say it. I've never had a problem with XP.

Going back a few years, XP was a dog when it was first released. It only became stable in when it got to SP2. Vista is much better out the box than XP was as an initial release.

Anyway, as an XP/Vista/Ubuntu user in terms of stability I would rate XP > Vista > Ubuntu (ie. XP is most stable of the three). I don't think Ubuntu is that stable to be honest - I have more lock up problems with that than anything else, and I've had similar experiences in my brief experimentations with SuSe and Mandrake.

[LivinLOS]

Seems to me its the standard "this OS is crap" line mostly from people with dated hardware..

CoreDuo 6850 3ghz (not overclocked yet) with a few gigs of ram.. high rpm hard disc and a dx10 gfx card.. System flys along.. Plus show me another OS that will run a media server with consumer electronics (extender v2) nodes around a house and stream hidef all over ?? Ohh there isnt one...

Everyone likes to hate MS.. But every few years they roll out a new must have OS as far as I am concerned.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hello.

I've been using XP for a longish time and never had any problem with it - the only BSOD i ever got on XP (on my own machine!) was when i deliberately tried to run an ATI graphics card with Nvidia drivers.

Now i use Vista since it's release, the Ultimate version. My hardware is what most of you would consider "lowest budget" but the OS works nicely on it, again i never had a BSOD on it yet (and haven't tried dodgy drivers). I find Vista to be fast and very reliable, really can't see "crap" in it.

Or wait, yes, there is. VERY poor multimedia support! I am talking video here. Even after installing a ton of codecs it still sometimes gets a hiccup over some weirdly coded .avi files, specially divx or xvid - the fault being in the preview thing in folder view, it gets the "Com Surrogate appcrash" error. yet the OS will neither stall nor crash, simply clicking "OK" restarts the Com Surrogate, whatever it is, and i keep on working.

And the thing that keeps nagging with password requests is called "User Account Control", i had that disabled two minutes after the first boot of the newly installed system.

Still i am only a couple of weeks before switching over to Linux - why? I don't really know. My Vista is genuine, it did cost me a lot of Baht and i like it. Yet, despite certain frustrations in Linux, i like that, too..... and, after all, it's a challenge to learn something completely new. I keep my Vista and XP (dual boot in fact but now that i have decent video editors/converters for Vista i hardly use XP anymore) on their HDD installed and just put a new HDD in for Linux - should i fail, i can revert back to Windows in the time it takes me to swap a HDD.

By the way i never had a problem with Windows 98 either - but ME was DEFINITELY crap. Never saw an OS that crashed so often all by itself.

With best regards......

Thanh

[Plus]

I don't get this Vista-ME comparison.

They are both total crap, as simple as this.

Oh, I thought you applied some sophisticated criteria and analysis. Never mind, I see for myself that there's nothing in common between them.

[slackula]

I can say it. I've never had a problem with XP.

Going back a few years, XP was a dog when it was first released. It only became stable in when it got to SP2. Vista is much better out the box than XP was as an initial release.

Anyway, as an XP/Vista/Ubuntu user in terms of stability I would rate XP > Vista > Ubuntu (ie. XP is most stable of the three). I don't think Ubuntu is that stable to be honest - I have more lock up problems with that than anything else, and I've had similar experiences in my brief experimentations with SuSe and Mandrake.

If the only comparison you can make is 'brief experimentations' with SuSe and Mandrake then I would like to (politely) point out that you haven't experimented very much.

If stability and security are important to you then Gentoo, Linux From Scratch and especially Slackware or any of the *BSD releases should be on the list before you discount GNU/Linux or UNIX systems.

Ubuntu is trying to popularise Linux, and doing quite well at it but at the cost of fooling people into believing that drivers for every combination of hardware are available, and all things can be done through a few mouse clicks. This is the same trap that MS has fallen into for years and it is a fallacy resulting in hugely bloated OS's with way too much overhead and hence the absurd hardware requirements for Vista.

If you really want a stable, secure OS then you need to put some effort into configuring it and locking it down and MS has traditionally been severely lacking in providing the tools to do that; aftermarket firewalls and anti-virus programs that work on occasion are not acceptable, and closed source coding with intermittent patches also do not cut the mustard.

Sorry for the rant, but I think that any OS that costs $300+ needs to actually work, or at least provide me the tools I need to make it work.

[Tywais]

and especially Slackware

All my servers use Slackware due to the high security and stability. They run 24/7 for months without having to worry about it. The only time it is rebooted is during long power outages. Had it running once for over a year without ever restarting it.

I just upgraded from Vista Ultimate to XP (sorry, but I considered it an upgrade) due to many issues I had with it. I have a medium-high performance machine so performance wasn't an issue, it was quite fast. However after a week it got a BSOD even with the latest Vista drivers. Yes, bad drivers is not Vista's fault but stability is critical for my work. Another application I use daily that never had problems under XP would randomly crash daily.

Several programs I need would fail to install. Some installed but wouldn't run or just crashed. My programming environment (absolutely required for my work) will not work under Vista and that was the last straw. I'm sure most people won't have problems - I'm a power user, it's my profession and will wait a while before trying it again. I really liked the look and feel of Vista and its performance and would happily continue(d) to use it once the above issues can be solved.