Vista Or Bust: The End Of Windows XP

For PC users, the countdown to Windows 7, Microsoft's next operating system, starts now.

The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant today is discontinuing widespread distribution of its long-running Windows XP, leaving most consumers buying a new computer stuck with the much-maligned Windows Vista through at least 2010.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[ProgressiveBum]

My last MS operating system was Windows 2000, and arguably the best one they ever produced. They've been going downhill ever since. Win XP is nice, but still it requires third party security applications to keep it safe. Realizing that 3rd party apps are required to keep it safe MS tried to include the "Malicious Software Removal tool" with Win Updates, but it just doesn't work all that well.
Bottom line: If any software maker cannot keep their product safe they are not worth consideration. Yet, MS has always put whiz-bang effects first and security as an afterthought. Vista uses too many resources to be somewhat secure, and there are many better alternatives available...for free!
I'd suggest downloading several Linux distro live .iso images, burn them to CD, and boot each one of them to find which one you are most comfortable with. Here are a few names to google: Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Linux Mint. More corporate versions are openSUSE, Mandriva and Fedora. Another nice one is PC-BSD, which is extremely stable and secure.
All of the above are immune to Windows viruses and spyware, and use an "intelligent" filesystem that never needs to be defragmented. Firewalls are included, and you don't need to use the command line to have an efficient operating system. Enjoy!

[NeoStar9]

I like Linux as well, specifically the Ubuntu and Fedora (learned on this one in college in a few classes) distros. However I'm a computer gamer so it just isn't workable for me. Pretty much the only reason I stayed with Windows for so long even though I've messed around with dual booting Linux. I think it's good part of why many people don't make the switch from Microsoft to Linux.

[NeoStar9]

I'm dual booting Windows XP and Vista Premium and I haven't had any issues. Not saying there aren't any as I'm sure there are for others. It isn't as bad as people say it is, at least as long as you don't have an old computer. Mine isn't top of the line but outside of the dvd-writer most of the hardware I have is at least 2 or 3 years old. Running it on hard ware older then that I'm sure is an issue. They should have been more honest about the requirements for the operating system. Out side of that isn't isn't horrible (though the constant popups for me to allow something is getting a bit annoying.

[JaseAllen]

Vista "borrowed" the security pop-ups from Linux & OS X. At least with Vista, you can turn them off in the User Account settings. You'll need to reboot for the change to take place. The security degrades to XP levels, but I trust you keep your anti-virus software updated.

[mamacat]

I remain convinced that Gates forced Vista down our throats just to make a few more billions.
It is cr*p.
If Microsoft were not to software what Exxon is to oil, they would have been put out of business by Vista.

[stavros]

Vista or bust?
That's a laugh.
XP has been fixed by those who work outside Microshaft.
Freeware made XP better than it was and freeware will leave Vista behind.
Now you know why billyboy retired.

[paulbikes]

Shareware is growing, and because its growing its getting much better, and because its getting better its growing.

Try Ubuntu Linux if you havent. Its taken a long time, but Its the most user friendly linux ever, and i love it.

[Sundialsvc4]

"The times, they are a'changin'."

Now, on the one hand, this song has always been true, but never before has it been quite so obvious ... -financially- speaking ... in the personal-computer marketplace.

And that is why Apple Computer is waltzing-away with that market, with no one out there really prepared (anymore...) to stop them. Circumstances will not long remain here, of course, but it is extremely instructive to observe how they got here.

Microsoft swallowed a 5-gallon bucket of "IBM Disease," even as IBM was curing itself. They simply decided that they were "a monopoly" (conning a Federal judge to agree...) and began to act that way. It never occurred to them that there would ever be a serious, financially-viable competitor to their system, let alone one that would calmly proceed to eat their lunch. It N-E-V-E-R occurred to them, also, that such a company could leapfrog them by taking full advantage of open-source software components that had already been written. But so it was... while Microsoft was busy trying to build a taxicab, Apple hailed one.

The notion that "software equals monopoly" is, or should be, as dead as a dodo-bird. There's always someone out there who will "Think Different(TM)."

[paulbikes]

Microsoft bailed out apple and profited on their rise back to good company status.

And its not apple or microsoft, there are many alternatives, people are just lazy. Ill say it yet again, Ubuntu 8.04 linux is extremely user friendly and bears a feeling similar to both pc and mac. worth trying, because if you do like it then consider yourself free haha.

Its only recently true that certain linux distributions, such as ubuntu, are a viable alternative for the average user, but its def. true. You can run microsoft office via a program called wine in linux, or you can use open office or any of several alternatives. The add / remove programs tool allows you to edit installed programs and it goes online and tracks down all available software catagorized by what kind of software it is and so on. Really cool stuff.

[RTIII]

PART II

If it weren't for this, it would probably be somewhat reasonable. Instead, unsuspecting users are throwing away a huge fraction of their computer's potential performance to keep them from something most - the VAST majority - would never think of doing in the first place.

It is, indeed, misplaced and misguided trust that is at the heart of what's wrong with Microsoft, itself. It puts the user's computer in a far too trusting position regarding security vulnerabilities, while at the same time not trusting the user at all. A second - level, and equally damaging to performance sin is that Microsoft figures THEY need to use all those extra cycles "that would otherwise be wasted," trying to impress us with all the magic it performs behind the scenes. They don't get it that those are OUR cycles! Truly, an awful situation.

Finally, NO, you don't have to USE Vista to know what its problems are. Any professional should know what to expect from it, even before turning it on. Vista does and will _always_ under-perform its XP counterpart because XP isnt' wasting performance trying to be a fully secure (for copyright holders) DRM platform.

I for one, will NEVER use Vista. Its my way of telling Microsoft where they can stuff it. I'm voting with my wallet. MAYBE they'll listen if we all do so. (In fact they already have; XP is presently "long past retirement age", but is still available for just the reasons I cited above.)

[RTIII]

PART I
A small fraction of the posts here are educated while most clearly voice uninformed opinion.

I'm one of the few here, apparently, who can speak to facts. I have written a real-time multi-tasking operating system _from_scratch._ I have worked on major operating systems, both in their development and maintenance in service. I have done hardware design as well, and am rare in computing as someone who fully crosses the software/hardware divide. And, I've been reading the computer industry insider trade rags (like EDN) since the late 70s. Finally, I've got internals experience with Microsoft's OSes, and have specifically studied Vista.

In our 250 word limit there isn't space for a full response but here are some facts to consider, focusing in on Vista as that's the subject of the article:

Vista _is_ a "bad" OS because its internal design is flawed. The fundamental problem is that it was designed around the premise of being a "digital rights management" machine. Yes, DRM. The reason it's bad is because a key implementation paradigm is to not trust the consumer AT ALL.

This lack of trust is so pervasive and absurd that they even encode the dialogue between the CPU and the video card in an attempt to ensure that there's never ANY point at which someone can hook up a HARDWARE trace to capture video streams. Truly absurd. They're worried you'll capture a stream of data, analog or digital, that might carry copyrighted material.

[LiberalBuzz]

The only people I know who got Vista, went shopping for computers with XP within two months. They couldn't get rid of Vista fast enough.

Bad design there Bill. You should have just upgraded XP and forgotten about Vista because everyone I know is forgetting about it as fast as possible.

[paulbikes]

Vista is xp with a ton of gross transparencies and animations that consume ram and so on. It is in no way an improvement, just supposed to be prettier.

If thats not true, then tell me, because in the couple of hours i tried vista thats all i could tell. that stuff sucks.

[pie8ter]

"Vista is xp with a ton of gross transparencies and animations that consume ram and so on."

I couldn't agree with you more!

Also, they moved around programs and tools for no reason what so ever. For example, what did they accomplish by stripping add/remove applet into multiple applets and hiding them in different places? I understand MS supposedly have overhauled the entire windows code in Vista and Windows 2008 for new requirements like DVI-D with HDCP, but they didn't have to screw around with the program/tools.

I despise Vista. To make the matters worse, Microsoft also screwed up the windows 2008 server's look and feel by adapting Vista's desktop theme.

[pie8ter]

With 11 years of IT experience, I wouldn't even touch Vista with ten foot pole. When I eat greasy food, I sometimes feel like I am bloated. That's how I feel about Vista. I only deployed about 16 PCs with Vista. in our company. Unless absolutely needed, I am deciding against further Vista deployments. Windows XP has been a stable OS for us and we ain't gonna screw us ourselves by deploying Vista.

[DofG]

In this modern age, technology is the mindless "how" of doing things without any connection to the "why", beyond the pertetuation of "mechanistic survival" for those who are economically able. Competition, the "natural mother", but unfortunately, the only contemplated mode of "progress", creates, then destroys its creations for its own sake. Microsoft is no different- a young man with a great idea (that pre-exists in Nature) and gains the whole world, only to be reduced to being a concubine for the ego's insatiable need to dominate others!

[Guitarsandmore]

I would like to see a new trend begin where the operating systems and applications actually use less hardware and fewer resources than the previous generation. Isn"t that a worthwhile goal? Wouldn"t that be so very marketable to anyone who enjoys software applications? Imagine being able to cram more new applications on your existing hardware platform instead of fewer! Who wouldn"t want that?

[filo]

I bought a new Dell laptop last October. It came preloaded with Vista. I have had no trouble with it. I think most people run into trouble when they upgrade an XP PC to Vista. I have two desktops running XP that I would never upgrade. One of those desktops will be replaced soon. I plan on building my new PC with plenty of ram and I will install Vista on it.

[WasteNJ]

14 years in IT and I can let you know that nobody in Enterprise (business IT) is using Vista. Intel announced they will not use it. It's simple, we in IT are not prone to the sales pitch, we need to know the nuts and bolts, what it'll take to make a move to a new OS.

XP is capable of doing everything Vista does, at up to double the speed. Because of Vista's high demands for RAM, CPU speed, etc, it runs roughly half as fast on the same machine as XP. Now from a business perspective, upgrading hardware on all of your machines just to accommodate an Operating System that doesn't add capability. Factor in that Vista may not be compatible with proprietary software your business might run, your printers/copiers, etc. There's no justification to switch unless you just like the looks. Download the Zune theme for XP and it looks almost the same.

I used Vista (had to learn it) since the Beta version, 9 months before the release. It's bloated and inefficient, but with a hot-rod machine you can have a OK experience if you're willing to ante-up.. Microsoft's second major blunder will be to take XP off the market, while Linux makes inroads into Enterprise and Apple's OS-X gains in the consumer market. I prefer Linux for the daily tasks as they are basically immune to viruses and run fast on an older machine, also 95% of Linux distributions are FREE.

[JaseAllen]

Have anyone the anti-Vista crowd hear actually /used/ it yet? I've used it since the day after it came out. I don't have problems with it. I don't understand why it gets such bad press and why people treat that bad press as gospel with out even trying the OS. All major OS upgrades will create problems for some users. There will be some computers too "old" to run it; some apps not compatible. That's the nature of the beast.

With Mac's change to the PPC processors, users of the older Macs had to by a new Mac to upgrade their OS. Same with the chance to Intel processors. When Mac OS upgraded to OS X from 9, some users had to dual boot because of program incompatibilities. When I complained my B&W G3 can't run the latest version of OS X, Apple users tell me it's my fault that my system is too old and to just by a new one. Those same people scream bloody murder when Vista causes obsolescence. Even worse, some XP users act the same. Do people not remember the issues upgrading to XP? Or to Windows 95?

If you haven't used Vista, don't complain about it. Try it, or shut it.

[mamacat]

Everyone I have talked to who has upgraded to Vista went back to XP, including me. I feel like a fool for trusting Gates to do something good. The Vista upgrade cost us a lot of money, going in and going out, but also cost us a lot of down time in our business.

[JaseAllen]

Most people I know aren't computer savvy. They don't don't upgrade the OS on their existing computers. A few can't even tell me what Windows version they run. One recently purchased a new Vista laptop likes it. The mid-range system meet Vista recommendations and runs quite well. I updated my existing main PC that I built out of value priced parts. The 1 1/2 year old now low-end system is still within Vista recommendations and runs Vista well.

It's extremely irritating to me to hear people just whine that Vista "sucks" with out giving a reason. Did it run slow? Cause errors? Is it not compatible with their favorite software? Do they just not like the interface? What, if anything, did they try to solve it? How was it installed? Was it pre-installed by the vender bogged down with useless junk? Was it an upgrade over XP already cluttered with leftovers from uninstalled apps? Was it a clean install?

I've heard all this whining before when XP came out. It's not as good as 98. It's sluggish. It sucks. I'm switching to blah blah blah. XP is aging. Support will eventually end, as it should. Mac OS 9 support ended even though many users of older Macs were left out in the cold. PPC Mac users are left out with Tiger as it only supports the new Mac/tels. They are all expected to just suck it up and buy a new one.

[WasteNJ]

Have used Vista since the RC1 Beta. Also use OS-X and numerous Linux distros. Vista is bloated and a sorry replacement for XP, based on performance. Sure, hardware upgrades were recommended for all the Windows upgrades, but never such a big jump forward. MS must build an OS that runs on the average machine, not the highest end machine or Enterprise clients will never buy it. That's Microsoft's bread and butter, big multi user licenses and their Office suite.

It's true, Apple doesn't make a priority of backward compatibility. It's one of the things that we laugh about regarding Mac people, that they get screwed every time a new generation of Operating System comes out. Microsoft has been good about backwards compatibility, and it's hurt them as well. But when over 90% of the computers in the world are running Windows, you can't just cut off the old versions and move on. Xp isn't going anywhere, every IT department has plenty of copies to keep us going forever, or until at least a year after Windows 7 debuts. IT won't touch any new Operating System until the first major update, or Service Pack is released.

[DRaymond]

Microsoft made a change in approach with XP. They would issue free service packs rather than forcing people to upgrade. And they are continuing that. There is NOTHING forcing anyone to switch from XP to Vista on current hardware. They just issued Service pack 3 which gives XP clients everything they need to interoperate with Vista and Server 2008.

But with that comes a change in the purpose of what a new release is about. A new release is about setting the groundwork for the next half decade's worth of expected hardware changes.

And that is why they REALLY want you to put Vista on new computers (it is not as though they make less money selling you XP instead). They know that by the end of the expected 5 year lifespan of a new computer bought today XP will be a decade old and really tough to continue to support.

[JaseAllen]

It's not like everyone's PC will be forcibly purged of XP. The computer I type this on dual-boots Linux & XP. You can still purchase software that runs on XP and that will remain true for some time. However, all things must end including XP support. I think it's stupid to sell two versions of the same product at the same time. I'm surprised Microsoft did it for as long as it did.

Why do so many people assume that the next version of Windows will be so great if they think Vista is crap? It will still be a Microsoft product developed by Microsoft employees and it will still be Windows. The next version of Windows will ship late, have plenty of bugs and security issues, and be bloated with software I have no use for but don't have a way to uninstall. It will also have performance issues just as Vista does now, XP did when it came out, and as every major Windows version before it.

My PC was by no means top of the line when I installed Vista on it. I built it out of "value" priced components. Somehow, my performance is still pretty good, rating a WIE score of 5 for most items & 4.2 on video.

[Tags]

In 2005, I left XP for Mac and never looked back.

Since then, I've switched from Republican to Democrat.

[JaseAllen]

Duh-huh. OS choice as nothing to do with political affiliation. I switched from XP to Vista and love it. I do like OS X more as it becomes more Windows-like, though. I also switched from Democrat to a party not afraid to be viewed as liberal.