Ballmer: You Want XP, We'll Keep XP

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Microsoft says if the demand is there, they will extend XP's life? So how is Microsoft going to know this? Where are they going to get their information of the demand to keep XP alive? Maybe some petitions should be done to give them some numbers.

As far as my vote, keep the support for XP and keep it available for people to have a choice to buy. I know there are a lot of people who support Vista but I don't personally know anyone who likes it. Keep giving people the choice to get what OS they want Microsoft!
 
Keep Windows XP. I am NOT going to upgrade my clients' machines until ALL of their applications they use work in Vista. And even then, they may not get upgraded as everything work flawlessly right now.
 
Keep XP, no point upgrading or installing Vista when they are going to kill that in 2010 (providing they don't lag behind and fudge up like they did with Vista). Besides it's been shown that Vista sucks up the performance of the system instead of improve it like the jump from 98, 2000 to XP.
 
Mike89 said:
So Microsoft says if the demand is there, they will extend XP's life? So how is Microsoft going to know this? Where are they going to get their information of the demand to keep XP alive? Maybe some petitions should be done to give them some numbers.

As far as my vote, keep the support for XP and keep it available for people to have a choice to buy. I know there are a lot of people who support Vista but I don't personally know anyone who likes it. Keep giving people the choice to get what OS they want Microsoft!
Click to expand...

It's called Activation. When you activate Windows. you agree to allow their activation server acknowledge your computer (or Window's) existence. When you activate Windows you were prompted that information is going out to Microsoft (but not your personal information), unless you called, then they manually add you to their activation server.
 
Hmm, I didn't think about activation. How long until Microsoft stops providing activation keys for XP?
 
Keep !

Of the 4 pc's we have in our house,three are used daily,and use XP.One uses Vista,but that Vista install gets almost zero use.
 
kunsunoke said:
Windows XP - keep; enhance support
Windows 2000 - resume support (as it was the best of the three)
Windows Vista - send to hell from whence it came
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I've quickly changed from 3.1 to 95 and then to 98 and 98SE and then to 2k. I did 4 installs of ME and could never get it stable not to mention is always screwed up my network settings. Although I tried XP soon after it came out I went back to 2k for a while. At the time it had practically no features that set it above 2k and XP required about twice the RAM to run the same programs with the same responsiveness as 2k.

The two things that made me switch over to XP from 2k was backwards compatibility with some software and more driver updates for hardware. Otherwise, I would have stuck with 2k much longer. I made XP look like 2k right off the bat as I hate the Luna theme.

I've used Vista on and off since the late beta days. I've used 32 and 64 bit versions. I've used it with 512 meg of RAM up to 4 gig of RAM. I've run it on processors ranging from an AthlonXP up to a [email protected]. I just don't like the OS and I find it annoying to use even after turning off UAC. Don't even get me started on the damn networking setup.

XP is by no means the best OS ever, but I see no reason to kill it off yet. Give people the choice to purchase either XP or Vista for a while longer. I don't think it should be sold indefinitely, but let demand for the OS decide more of its fate.

While I've seen arguments like this for just about every major MS OS release, the XP to Vista situation is a little different. XP was miles ahead of 98 and ME in stability and resource management. Its biggest downfall was compatibility with older software due to the move to the NT codebase. For most people, this became a non-issue quickly due to the stability and features of XP. Vista isn't miles ahead of XP the way XP was over 98/ME. I've used all of these OSes and I have a good idea of their advantages and drawbacks. Many people just do not see many advantages with going to Vista and what OS they choose should be up to them.

On my main machine I had a triple boot setup consisting of XP, Vista and openSUSE. I recently wiped that and did a reinstall consisting of XP and openSUSE. I never used Vista and decided to reclaim the 40 gig of hard drive space partitioned for it for other uses. I keep XP for games I can't run decently under Wine as well as a couple other apps. Some of these apps and games do not work at all or do not work well under Vista so I decided to keep the OS that they work well on.

As for the people stating there is no reason to need to retrain people for Vista, you must not have many people around you aren't at least somewhat computer savvy. I know plenty who are not and one thing they have in common is that they don't trust something which is not familiar. This can mean they will screw something up because it's not implemented the same way it was in the previous OS, can't figure it out because it's implemented differently or will always be contacting me to ask about even the simplest things because they are afraid of breaking something. There were small differences in the UI and location of things between 95 and 98 but for the most part they were the same cosmetically. However, due to these small changes, I had to retrain people because there were differences. There will always be retraining necessary when switching to a different OS. Any UI change, location change or name change will require retraining for a lot of people.

 
SmokeRngs said:
As for the people stating there is no reason to need to retrain people for Vista, you must not have many people around you aren't at least somewhat computer savvy. I know plenty who are not and one thing they have in common is that they don't trust something which is not familiar. This can mean they will screw something up because it's not implemented the same way it was in the previous OS, can't figure it out because it's implemented differently or will always be contacting me to ask about even the simplest things because they are afraid of breaking something. There were small differences in the UI and location of things between 95 and 98 but for the most part they were the same cosmetically. However, due to these small changes, I had to retrain people because there were differences. There will always be retraining necessary when switching to a different OS. Any UI change, location change or name change will require retraining for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I think the costs of continuing to support and fix XP with all its security issues will far outweigh the costs of getting the staff up to speed with the Vista interface.

My girlfriend thought she hated Vista because her school had Vista and Office 2008, and the new Office interface drove her nuts. Once I showed her that the only functional difference (for her) between XP and Vista is the start orb and new start menu layout and that she could keep using an older version of office she was fine.

I don't recommend people upgrade to Vista if they have a perfectly functional XP machine, but there's no reason not to go with 64-bit Vista if you're buying/building a new computer.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I think the costs of continuing to support and fix XP with all its security issues will far outweigh the costs of getting the staff up to speed with the Vista interface.

My girlfriend thought she hated Vista because her school had Vista and Office 2008, and the new Office interface drove her nuts. Once I showed her that the only functional difference (for her) between XP and Vista is the start orb and new start menu layout and that she could keep using an older version of office she was fine.

I don't recommend people upgrade to Vista if they have a perfectly functional XP machine, but there's no reason not to go with 64-bit Vista if you're buying/building a new computer.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post for the most part.
 
dopee123 said:
The thing is.. XP can do anything Vista can do, possibly even better. Until it offers a real reason to upgrade, I'll stick with XP.
Click to expand...

Except it's not natively written for mulit-core. And it still won't ever have Direct x 10. And with that lots of people will bitch that they gotta go buy Vista to play a game in the next two years because no one will want to use Direct X 9 architecture with the effeciency of sending graphic data straight to the GPU. :eek: WHAT? I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CPU ANYMORE??!!
 
Keep!

Vista is the WinME of the OS world.

Nice try, Microsoft. Decent ideas, but hopefully Windows 7 will put it all together.
 
Dan_D said:
I agree with this post for the most part.
Click to expand...

same here.

at my office, i'm in charge of 40+ machines. all running XP pro. right now, we can't upgrade due to an application we use that is so horribly coded that it barely runs in XP. it is not vista compatible.

but when the time comes to purchase new machines, I'll get it with vista business and start integrating them into the office. one at a time, starting with the most competant. in my experience with vista and xp, they play together pretty good on the same network, no need to just up and upgrade 40+ machines all at once.
 
AceGoober said:
Keep Windows XP. I am NOT going to upgrade my clients' machines until ALL of their applications they use work in Vista. And even then, they may not get upgraded as everything work flawlessly right now.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I wouldn't either. Wait till someone is ready to move on to it. Companies are working on updated versions of their programs all the time. It should be a lot less trouble with the updated format that Vista now has. I guess the abbreviated setup they came out with for covering the past ten years + didn't do such a great job of emulation.
 
rewind22x said:
but when the time comes to purchase new machines, I'll get it with vista business and start integrating them into the office. one at a time, starting with the most competant. in my experience with vista and xp, they play together pretty good on the same network, no need to just up and upgrade 40+ machines all at once.
Click to expand...

Good idea should save you a lot of time retraining everyone if the most computer competent are able to teach the others while saving you the headache.
 
Wildman_CAL said:
Nobody bitches about Apple keeping an older version of OS X when the release a new one.
Click to expand...

That's because newer OS X releases actually run faster. Not only do they include new features, they also have kernal optimizations that slightly boost performance over previous versions. I ran 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 on the same hardware I bought in 2002 and it ran slightly faster after each upgrade. This is also with a straight upgrade; I never reformatted/reinstalled on that machine once. So I can actually say that a Mac tower I bought in 2002 ran faster than the day I bought it by the time I gave it away at the end of last year.

If Vista ran faster than XP on the exact same hardware then I guarantee, nobody would be complaining about performance.
 
They should add directx10 to windows xp x64. I'm using x64 and to me its one of the best microsoft os's out. Vista was just way too bloated and way too much crap in the way. Games slowed down and everything. Microsoft should just keep support for xp64 and xp32 until the next windows comes out. Windows vista is like the windows me of today pretty much.
 
sumofatguy said:
thats not true at all. If microsoft made it, people will bitch. thats the way this world works
Click to expand...

Someone would complain but they would just be "that guy". That is different from the legitimate and broad complaints regarding Vista performance vs XP performance.

And like I said before, nobody complains about OS X upgrades because on top of rolling in new features, they also run faster than prior versions. I would frigging love it if Microsoft would do the same with theirs.
 
mdameron said:
They are talking about not shipping anymore out, not stop supporting it. Wonder when the last time someone on here has purchased XP.
Click to expand...

4 Days ago to replace Vista on a new DELL laptop. :D

Vista = The Devil.
 
JFC let XP die already. Bloody sick and tired of that OS and never want to be forced to work on it again.
 
Do I care if they keep selling it? No. Do I care if they keep supporting it? Hell yes.

I'm running a non-profit organization of 50-odd computers. Less than half just got "upgraded" to 3.2 GHz Intel HTs. Most are still sub 2.0 GHz with 1GB or less of RAM. We cannot afford upgrades at the current state of the budget (not after the last one wiped us out, and that was with a ton of grant money).

Rolling out Vista to every machine in the building would be an absolute nightmare. The only machines that would work acceptably would be those "Latest and greatest PCs", and the rest would be a disaster. NONE of our software works properly in Vista, including our database client, Policy enforcement software, etc.

I've got all the licenses I need, so if they want to stop producing, that's fine. But please, for the love of God, extend your support, Microsoft!

Personally, I run XP at home. My wife's got Vista on her 1GB laptop with a C2D, and it CHUGS. I'll feel the need to upgrade to 4-8 GB when I find software (other than the OS) that needs that much. Until then, I'm staying put.
 
Steppo said:
Do I care if they keep selling it? No. Do I care if they keep supporting it? Hell yes.
Click to expand...
Why are people complaining?
Support for XP is going to run through 2009, with long term support lasting an additional five years. You won't have to worry about not getting windows updates for a long time.

I find it interesting that most of the "Vista is the devil" and "Vista is the new ME" crap is coming from noobs.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Why are people complaining?
Support for XP is going to run through 2009, with long term support lasting an additional five years. You won't have to worry about not getting windows updates for a long time.

I find it interesting that most of the "Vista is the devil" and "Vista is the new ME" crap is coming from noobs.
Click to expand...

I may be going way out on a limb here but XP is the most widely used OS not just because it's been around the longest...here we go...hang on...It's because XP is the best OS currently available and it will continue to be until we revisit the issue again when Window 7 is released.

Some people interpret XP adoration as Vista bashing. I just wish XP users would quit teasing Vista users. A lot of Vista users misery is self inflicted.
 
ICOM said:
I may be going way out on a limb here but XP is the most widely used OS not just because it's been around the longest...here we go...hang on...It's because XP is the best OS currently available and it will continue to be until we revisit the issue again when Window 7 is released.

Some people interpret XP adoration as Vista bashing. I just wish XP users would quit teasing Vista users. A lot of Vista users misery is self inflicted.
Click to expand...

good point indeed... but I might be going out on a limb here by saying that most people who believe this probably haven't actually used vista themselves. I've been using vista since day one, and have yet to have even a single problem with it; no blue screens, no lockups, no driver issues... nothing. I would gander a guess and say that most people who dislike vista do so because some nob on his personal blog wrote that vista is straight from satan
 
I'd rather see MS put their resources into optimizing Vista 64-bit and moving forward on the new 64-bit only OS.
 
I wouldn't read this entire thread, but I had to give my 2 ¢

98 was broken, we needed XP. Some systems are still running 98, so it is still fine for some people, but you couldn't manage it well if it did have a problem.

XP is not broken, we don't need Vista. Some people still have computer problems, doesn't mean that it is XP's fault. With XP's management capability, I've been able to fix most issues, and I don't need to reload as often as 98.

There was a performance hit with XP over 98, so gamers waited. That became less of an issue later on, and stability became more important.

Ignorant people are trolls. If Vista is working for you, GREAT! I am fine with that. But you Vista zealots need to recognize that it doesn't work for everyone. And my biggest problem with it is WHY it isn't working. I can fix XP, I can't fix Vista, just reload it. Does anybody yet know what the "TrustedInstaller.exe" is actually doing when it decides to consume 100% of one CPU all day long(multi-core CPU is a necessity now)? You can't remove it, you can't run a "repair" to fix it, only a full wipe and reload fixes it.

Lastly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even if XP is "broke," Vista doesn't fix it, it just adds more crap to break. Some people are "stuck" in upgrade mode, newer is not always better. Upgrade for a reason that will benefit you, not just because it is newer, or because MS tells you so.
 
verteron said:
I wouldn't read this entire thread, but I had to give my 2 ¢

98 was broken, we needed XP. Some systems are still running 98, so it is still fine for some people, but you couldn't manage it well if it did have a problem.

XP is not broken, we don't need Vista. Some people still have computer problems, doesn't mean that it is XP's fault. With XP's management capability, I've been able to fix most issues, and I don't need to reload as often as 98.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "XP's management capability?" I do computer builds/repairs for a living right now. I've only had a few people come back in with Vista issues, but I get malware infested XP machines all the time. When Vista works, it works. It doesn't get bogged down over time like XP, and it's much, much more secure.

Yes there's more overhead, but the haters make it sound like Vista will bring all but the most powerful computers to their knees. Any machine built in the last 4 years with 1 GB of RAM and a basic video card can run Vista just fine.

We do need Vista. We needed a more stable and secure operating system, and Microsoft delivered.
 
Sorry verteron but the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" idea is adopted by the tech industry, I'm going to find a new hobby/lifestyle/degree of interest. That kind of mentality limits creativity.

XP isn't all the jazz everyone claims it to be. Remember when XP ran kinda crappy, and everyone said man XP sucks I'm waiting for SP1?

As a Vista user I don't hold it against any of you who decide to keep chugging on XP while Vista is hammered out. My brother has always done just that, when XP first came out he wouldn't touch it. Now he won't budge from XP/linux.

I think a lot of the problem is media and the "omg i know what im talking about" crowd got ahold of vista through MS forcing it on people through OEMs.. I know TONS of people that don't know jack shit about computers who are like "man vista sucks" When queried as to why they reply "Oh well my friend (or friends friends) has problems with it and says its not good" too many idiots get a hold of an OS that shouldn't have been mainstream yet, and bash it because they don't understand it takes time to stabilize.

Lets face it, theres ALWAYS going to be 1-1.5 years of time where MS new OSes have to mature to the point where they are good..

I hate when people have 1 problem with an OS, format it rather than overcome it if possible then say "man it sucks". If it doesn't work or cant be fixed for you thats fine, but don't hate on something that took thousands and thousands of man hours to create, just because it doesn't work for someone with old hardware, or old software. Those old pieces of software are somewhat to blame sometimes too.
 
I "support" alot of family and friends with computers. There are far more complaints about Vista than there were about XP. XP is a stable, mature product. Vista is not. Vista just did not deliver on key functional areas that would have justified an upgrade.
 
Can't we just chalk it up to people liking different things? ;) There are plenty of PS2 fans out there who hate the PS3, I'm sure. Same with other consoles, and so the same is for computers. It's just like the Nvidia vs ATI thing.. everyone has different opinions and experiences.

I've been running XP since 2002, and in those 6 years I've had to reformat only twice. I also never really had any other problems with XP. I just started using Vista a month ago, and was a bit nervous at first, but I actually like it. I don't want to say either is better than XP because they're both totally different so I can't really compare them. But I DO understand that people do like different things... My father just started using Vista on his new laptop and he hates it, I don't know why though actually.. he never gave me a reason aside from "I just hate it" ;)

And for those saying they shouldn't have put out Vista since XP is still working.. can't that be true for any new product a company puts out? Why should I replace something that works? I think that Vista is great for new computers or new builds, and that it of course is not necessary to 'upgrade' to Vista from XP on a computer that already is running XP.. it's just another choice for people to make. Come on, all humans love choice.. I think it's what makes us so much different from other living things. How nice is it to go food shopping and be able to choose from 100+ brands of cereal? A lot of people love Cheerios, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have made a Honey Nut Cheerios or an Apple Cinnamon Cheerios to choose from.

Okay yes, my analogies are quite bad, but I'm sure you understood what I meant anyway. :)
 
moshpit said:
Let it die already. I haven't seen ONE excuse in this thread to keep it alive that wouldn't be the same excuse to use Windows 98SE over XP for the first 3 years of XP's life. I didn't keep using 98 through XP's lifetime, I won't be using XP through Vista's lifetime either. Stay in the stone age or move on up, your own call.
Click to expand...

stone age? ok moshpit...you go ahead and buy it for me...along with a computer that will run it as fast as mine runs XP:)

Keep it...i dont want to use all of my p4 (i know i know, old) system resources to run an OS, id like to have a little extra so I can use the computer.

actually it doesnt matter that much to me, my xp machine is only good for music playback in my studio. Mac runs everything else i need. not a big pc gamer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top