Windows Xp Support Announcements

[A_Traveller]

A missive from Bill Veghte, a VP from MS is noted for saying that security patches and updates to Windows XP will be provided until April 2014. In what could be considered by some to be an understatement, he wrote, 'Our ongoing support for Windows XP is the result of our recognition that people keep their Windows-based PCs for many years.'. Hm...

On Windows 7 there's a passing comment which suggests it shipping in 'approximately three years' after Vista's launch. This would allow for the rumoured 'holiday' '09 launch some are suggesting.

Regards

PS For those who don't follow these things I make that about 3 extra years compared to other Windows support cycles.

Edited June 25, 2008 by A_Traveller

[2008bangkok]

I aint havin that there will be another 1 or 2 more versions of windows by then and that would mean support for 4 OS's NAH

[A_Traveller]

^ Why? MS at one stage were supporting 98, NT {aka Windows 2000}, ME and XP plus server products.

Regards

[dotcom]

No Vista in my future so this is good news.

[2008bangkok]

^ Why? MS at one stage were supporting 98, NT {aka Windows 2000}, ME and XP plus server products.

Regards

I beg to differ Microsoft will only support 2 OS workstations(home user)2 Server's with patches, updates and support, so at present it will be Vista and XP and Windows 2008 and 2003, but a little for Win2k server while they phase it out

[A_Traveller]

^ Pardon? You stated that MS would not support 4 OS' simultaneously, even though they have done in the past.

Windows 2000 Professional has extended support to 2010 with mainstream support retired in 2005.

Windows XP Professional has extended support to 2014 with mainstream support to 2009.

Windows Server 2003 has extended support to 2015 and mainstream support to 2010.

For comparison Vista Ultimate has mainstream support until 2012 with no extended dates applied yet.

Regards

Edited June 25, 2008 by A_Traveller

[2008bangkok]

^ Pardon? You stated that MS would not support 4 OS' simultaneously, even though they have done in the past.

Windows 2000 Professional has extended support to 2010 with mainstream support retired in 2005.

Windows XP Professional has extended support to 2014 with mainstream support to 2009.

Windows Server 2003 has extended support to 2015 and mainstream support to 2010.

For comparison Vista Ultimate has mainstream support until 2012 with no extended dates applied yet.

Regards

They havent supported 4 in the past thats just what you are saying and unfortunately you are wrong, like i just said they will support 2 of each, 2 workstations and 2 server products they will not support 4 of each or perhaps you could post a link to a KB that is for windows 2k and before recently

[A_Traveller]

^ Maybe English is not your first language?

Example:- take date first half 2002 {SE & NT 4.0 WKS mainstream support expired end of June that year}

From memory OS' operational {available to purchase} or under mainstream support by Microsoft Corporation at that time were.

Windows 98 SE

Windows ME

Windows NT 4.0 Workstation

Windows XP

Windows NT 4.0 Server

Windows 2000 Server

Now that would appear to be 6, or 4 if you want to argue the server editions are 'the same OS' and again this is only mainstream support not extended.

Regards

Edited June 25, 2008 by A_Traveller

[slackula]

If MS had announced this a year ago then my wife's office would still be using their products instead of the Macs they are currently switching over to, along with iWork and NeoOffice.

MS dropped the ball big time with Vista in my humble opinion.

[A_Traveller]

I have to say I've nothing against Vista per se, but I was very disappointed when they effectively hit the reset button, since they were not being successful in their data centric OS approach and switched to an 'OMG let's deliver something mode'. By removing elements from the Kernel {not the glorious rewrite some believe} and by default reducing BSOD type failures, though one must say in conventional use of XP {video drivers excepted} these were increasing rare, 'greater' stability and some performace enhancements were offered, though at the cost of higher than original anticipated hardware requirements. Thsi point leading to the Vista capable class actions.

At launch many noted that Vista biggest competitor was XP, in that both technically and in terms of user experience Vista offered surprisingly little. This is a reality since Vista's real development time is far shorter than MS have endeavoured to persuade. It is to be hoped that by remaining very quiescent on Windows 7 that product will be less of a disappointment upon release, after all if Vista had provided the anticipated {at least in the early stages} advances then there would have been no contest.

In reality my view is MS the marketing company has realised that it is best to appear reactive to customer concerns, whilst MS the technology company {some would argue that is an oxymoron} strives to build the 'next generation OS' this time.

Regards

Edited June 25, 2008 by A_Traveller

[slackula]

I am going to buy a fork with a Vista logo engraved on it.

[sjaak327]

I don't share the opinion that Vista offers little. In fact they did re-write vast parts of the operating system. Indeed the omittance of the new filesystem was a disappointment, but I think that they made the right choice in that matter, better to wait for windows 7 on that part.

What is left is indeed most under the hood, better security (and I dare say MUCH better). Probably not something the marketing department would be happy about, but still Vista offers some advantages over Xp in terms of features and usability. (especially in the Ultimate version).

"If MS had announced this a year ago then my wife's office would still be using their products instead of the Macs they are currently switching over to, along with iWork and NeoOffice.

MS dropped the ball big time with Vista in my humble opinion. "

Really, and then to think that many Apple fans consider Leopard to be just the failure that vista is In reality, they are both good Operating Systems, but if I would have to choose one, it would be vista without any doubt. I do run Leopard and I do like it, but in terms of usability, and availabiltiy of applications, Leopard simply doesn't cut it.

It's good that I don't have to choose, as I run both, but if I need to do some real work, I automatically go back to Vista.

[2008bangkok]

^ Maybe English is not your first language?

Example:- take date first half 2002 {SE & NT 4.0 WKS mainstream support expired end of June that year}

From memory OS' operational {available to purchase} or under mainstream support by Microsoft Corporation at that time were.

Windows 98 SE

Windows ME

Windows NT 4.0 Workstation

Windows XP

Windows NT 4.0 Server

Windows 2000 Server

Now that would appear to be 6, or 4 if you want to argue the server editions are 'the same OS' and again this is only mainstream support not extended.

Regards

O dear some people just dont like to be wrong..so i will walk into a PC world type thing 2mw and buy 4 previous versions of a workstation based operating system and will try to get 4 different server OS's hmm doubt it..

I would read threads before posting and ranting, i would say it is you that cannot understand english as i have said 3 times now its 2 Workstation and 2 server that is 2 workstation and 2 server that are supported..

So it will be Windows 2003 and Windows 2008 and it will be Windows Vista and Windows XP... nothing more nothing less and just for your petty argument ME was just a Y2K gimmic

Jai yen yen dude

[A_Traveller]

^ Ah, arrogance and ignorance all in the same package. How efficient of you.

Your posts continued to state that MS had never supported 4 OS' which is incorrect <sigh> further you show a breathtaking lack of understanding, indeed I'm starting to assume mayhap that you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

By the by ME was nothing to do with Y2K, it was a platform which allowed early testing of XP {primarily what became know as 'Home'} elements, and, in a similar way to Vista, suffered from bad initial press and so withered on the vine, especially since XP was less than 18 months away. By the time of it's {ME} release Windows NT, and even 98SE had been duly Y2K certified.

Regards

Edited July 1, 2008 by A_Traveller

[BigJobs]

I have been working for MS tech support now for 4 years; when I first started we were offering full support 98/me/2000/xp (that includes updates & phone tech support). 98 & ME support stopped sometime early last year. Now we still support 2000/XP/Vista..