article: Is Windows XP too good for Microsoft's own good?


T

Tiberius

My personal opinion is that XP was good, but they should have topped that on
the next version, not create the stupid OS called vista
Lets hope at least they get windows 7 right!

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=759


On September 27, Microsoft has extended the cut-off as to when PC makers
will be allowed to continue to sell Windows XP with new machines.
Until now, January 30, 2008, was the Microsoft-imposed deadline for system
vendors to cease offering Windows XP on all new OEM machines. (System
builders, a k a white-box vendors, had a longer deadline: January 30, 2009.)
But as a result of feedback from customers and partners, Microsoft has
extended the OEM and retailer cut-off date for XP to June 30, 2008. That
gives consumers five more months to buy XP with new Windows PCs before being
required to provide Vista.
The system-builder cut-off date for XP stays at 2009. Vendors selling XP
Starter Edition on "ultra-low-cost" machines get a longer reprieve and can
sell XP through 2010. And, in spite of the later cutover date for OEMs,
nothing changes, in terms of how long Microsoft will support Windows Vista:
Microsoft will provide mainstream support through 2012 and extended support
through 2017.
Microsoft began paving the way for a longer Vista ramp-up in July, when it
began simplifying the process by which its top-tier PC partners could
downgrade Vista users to XP.
Microsoft officials insist Vista is selling well and the push back of the
cutover deadline shouldn't be interpreted as Microsoft lessening its
commitment to Vista. The company will continue to spend its Windows
marketing and support dollars on Vista, not XP.
"The one-year XP transition just turned out to be a little too ambitious,"
acknowledged Kevin Kutz, a director in the Windows client unit.
Traditionally, Microsoft has given OEMs two years to transition to a new
operating system release, Kutz said.
Some industry watchers see the move as evidence of Microsoft is being
responsive to customers and partners. Others see it as Microsoft going with
the lesser of two evils by giving users not ready to move to Vista a choice
other than defecting to Mac OSX or Linux. Even though Microsoft is likely
making a few less dollars per copy of XP sold to OEMs than it makes on a
copy of Vista, a Windows sale is still a Windows sale.
For my part, I can't help but wonder if Vista finally and irrevocably pushed
Windows into the same category as Microsoft Office, meaning that the cost
and potential risks of upgrading have come to outweigh the benefit of new
features in the eyes of many customers.
What's your take? Did Microsoft make XP Service Pack (SP) 2 too good for its
own good? Or is Vista just an off release that Microsoft should hurry up and
replace - and definitely sooner than 2010, when it is slated to roll out
Windows 7?
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Guest

WHAT??? They can't get rid of XP!!! Vista still sucks too much and they won't
have it good enough by 2009! Microsoft is soooo stupid! On the other hand I'm
excited about Windows 7, but if they mess it up as bad as they did Vista, Mac
will dominate Windows.
 
J

John Waller

What's your take?

XP's Success Isn't Vista's Failure
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/xps_success_isnt_vistas_failure.html

"Microsoft's broken promises don't make Vista a bad operating system. Vista
is a better operating system than all those reports about slow adoption
might suggest. But Vista isn't a great operating system, which is what was
needed for it to get past Windows XP.
Today, the pundits will come out pointing fingers, with tongues wagging, "I
told you so. Vista sucks." Vista naysayers would be wrong to say this. Vista
is a good operating system and one that is better than Windows XP.

That some people still want Windows XP or that OEMs would ask to continue
selling it shouldn't surprise anyone."
 
T

Tiberius

I disagree 100%


John Waller said:
XP's Success Isn't Vista's Failure
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/xps_success_isnt_vistas_failure.html

"Microsoft's broken promises don't make Vista a bad operating system.
Vista is a better operating system than all those reports about slow
adoption might suggest. But Vista isn't a great operating system, which is
what was needed for it to get past Windows XP.
Today, the pundits will come out pointing fingers, with tongues wagging,
"I told you so. Vista sucks." Vista naysayers would be wrong to say this.
Vista is a good operating system and one that is better than Windows XP.

That some people still want Windows XP or that OEMs would ask to continue
selling it shouldn't surprise anyone."
 
J

John Waller

"I disagree 100%"

Thanks for the thoughtful response and indepth analysis ;-)

No problem.

We'll agree to disagree about whatever it is you disagree with then :)
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Shenan Stanley

hickmars said:
vista is much slower than xp

Windows 9x is much faster than Windows XP... *

* - on the same hardware given you have proper drivers for each OS in kind.

Why?
Less overhead, less code to parse, fewer ways to accomplish a given goal,
less built in automation/graphical eye-candy and less of the additonal
features/applications people just seem to *expect* in the toaster they like
to refer to as a computer. ;-)

Same logic, different example.
 
W

Winda

"...Microsoft is soooo stupid!..."

Some sources (google search) claim MS spent approx. $US 10 Billion, to develop
Vista, some others claim $US 5 Billion. Whether Vista failed or not, I did not
break MS.
Stupid they are not.

"...but if they mess it up as bad as they did Vista, Mac will dominate Windows."

Not with Nickels and Dimes they (Mac) will not. Even without any mistakes, Mac
still did not dominate, well even their hardware now will now run Windows, that's
what saved them.

Vista maybe a monumental mistake, I do not know, what I do know is a $US 10
Billion mistake would have taken Mac, Linux, maybe even IBM out of existance. Yet
MS can afford to develop another OS.

- Winda


news:[email protected]
 
D

dobey

Tiberius said:
My personal opinion is that XP was good, but they should have topped that
on the next version, not create the stupid OS called vista
Lets hope at least they get windows 7 right!

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=759


On September 27, Microsoft has extended the cut-off as to when PC makers
will be allowed to continue to sell Windows XP with new machines.
Until now, January 30, 2008, was the Microsoft-imposed deadline for system
vendors to cease offering Windows XP on all new OEM machines. (System
builders, a k a white-box vendors, had a longer deadline: January 30,
2009.) But as a result of feedback from customers and partners, Microsoft
has extended the OEM and retailer cut-off date for XP to June 30, 2008.
That gives consumers five more months to buy XP with new Windows PCs
before being required to provide Vista.
The system-builder cut-off date for XP stays at 2009. Vendors selling XP
Starter Edition on "ultra-low-cost" machines get a longer reprieve and can
sell XP through 2010. And, in spite of the later cutover date for OEMs,
nothing changes, in terms of how long Microsoft will support Windows
Vista: Microsoft will provide mainstream support through 2012 and extended
support through 2017.
Microsoft began paving the way for a longer Vista ramp-up in July, when it
began simplifying the process by which its top-tier PC partners could
downgrade Vista users to XP.
Microsoft officials insist Vista is selling well and the push back of the
cutover deadline shouldn't be interpreted as Microsoft lessening its
commitment to Vista. The company will continue to spend its Windows
marketing and support dollars on Vista, not XP.
"The one-year XP transition just turned out to be a little too ambitious,"
acknowledged Kevin Kutz, a director in the Windows client unit.
Traditionally, Microsoft has given OEMs two years to transition to a new
operating system release, Kutz said.
Some industry watchers see the move as evidence of Microsoft is being
responsive to customers and partners. Others see it as Microsoft going
with the lesser of two evils by giving users not ready to move to Vista a
choice other than defecting to Mac OSX or Linux. Even though Microsoft is
likely making a few less dollars per copy of XP sold to OEMs than it makes
on a copy of Vista, a Windows sale is still a Windows sale.
For my part, I can't help but wonder if Vista finally and irrevocably
pushed Windows into the same category as Microsoft Office, meaning that
the cost and potential risks of upgrading have come to outweigh the
benefit of new features in the eyes of many customers.
What's your take? Did Microsoft make XP Service Pack (SP) 2 too good for
its own good? Or is Vista just an off release that Microsoft should hurry
up and replace - and definitely sooner than 2010, when it is slated to
roll out Windows 7?

Eventually the majority will be forced onto Vista. Plenty of users just
except whats given, this is mainly OEM products when someone upgrades to a
new PC, and as soon as they are told XP isn't available they will shrug and
carry on.

Users aren't going to rush out and buy a mac, or switch to Linux - because
these are the users who don't want to know how their PCs work, they just
want to plug stuff in and it happens and learn as little as possible to do
it. They don't care that they may need a PC more powerful than a Linux
equivalent.

It's more difficult to find things, and when you do find them they are under
another layer of screens which don't do anything. I can see no good reason
why MS decides to move things around. They did the same with WMP and IE7.
Frustrating more than anything.

This wouldn't be so bad if it did something for the end user, but it
doesn't, no dazzling new features, except the promise of having to buy new
hardware to do the same things you did yesterday.

XP is finally at the stage where it quite stable and all it's flaws are
known, so troubleshooting is easier. It's pretty much as it should have been
from the beginning.

Vista is the start of a whole new cycle of "what's causing this?" and quirky
problems that take 18 months to be resolved.

Look at the networking fiasco, where opening a media file would reduce your
gigabit network to a crawl.

People are comfortable with XP the same way they were with Win98. there is
nothing MS can do to Vista that will change that.

And to boot, using my Nvidia card under Vista, video playback looks crap! I
dual boot so can directly compare. All parts of the PC about a year old.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Not Me

I haven't had any real hardware or software compatibility issues and Vista
works 'as designed'.
I just don't like the look and feel of Vista, even using classic menus &
turning off all the eye candy.
It seems to me like a car with the ignition switch in the trunk, the doors
reversed, and the blinker control in the back of the headrest.
You can reach it from the drivers seat, but WHY PUT IT THERE when it worked
fine where it was before?
I have thought every previous version of Windows was an improvement over the
last version.
But with Vista, it feels like a step backwards!
Change for a reason is fine, but I fail to see the reasoning behind all the
rearranging in Vista.
MS may claim it is for security, but the hackers figured out the new
locations before the wrap was shrunk on the RTM.
It just makes it harder for the 'average user' to use it.
All the handholding by UAC will train people to click through it, so when
there is a real threat, click, click it's installed anyway.
I haven't needed a babysitter/nanny since I was about 8 years old, so Vista
building one in doesn't impress me...
Especially since it makes other things malfunction when you give her the
night off (disable UAC).
To be honest, I don't like Linux either, but if I have to use something I
don't like, it had better be FREE!!!
As far as I am concerned, MS missed their foot and shot themselves in the
head with Vista.
 
W

Winda

Only they themselves were stupid enough to come out second best with Mr. Gates,

- Winda

| You sure don't know anything about IBM do you?
| | >
| > "...Microsoft is soooo stupid!..."
| >
| > Some sources (google search) claim MS spent approx. $US 10 Billion, to
| > develop
| > Vista, some others claim $US 5 Billion. Whether Vista failed or not, I did
| > not
| > break MS.
| > Stupid they are not.
| >
| > "...but if they mess it up as bad as they did Vista, Mac will dominate
| > Windows."
| >
| > Not with Nickels and Dimes they (Mac) will not. Even without any mistakes,
| > Mac
| > still did not dominate, well even their hardware now will now run Windows,
| > that's
| > what saved them.
| >
| > Vista maybe a monumental mistake, I do not know, what I do know is a $US
| > 10
| > Billion mistake would have taken Mac, Linux, maybe even IBM out of
| > existance. Yet
| > MS can afford to develop another OS.
| >
| > - Winda
| >
| >
| > | >
| >
|
|
 
N

NT Canuck

Tiberius said:
My personal opinion is that XP was good, but they should
have topped that on the next version, not create the stupid
OS called vista

If you really followed the Windows development you'd have
noticed that when Microsoft released SP2 for WinXP that
it contained some elements from (at the time) LongHorn,
just check the version numbers on files or poke inside.

Also what MicroSoft usually won't admit to it that the
LongHorn was initiated from Windows Server (sp1?) code
which was an attempt to start a new dynamic by using
the best available code base and not just convenient.

ergo: if you like WinXP then you like Vista since they
are almost identical in security and added options
transferred to WinXP right at core levels.

What MicroSoft hasn't done properly with Vista is
explain the integrated benefits and technology to
clientele so that they'd realize just how much
MicroSoft has actually accomplished under the hood.
This would have allowed more leeway for understanding
trivial nits and concentrated effort from the public
to smooth out some radically shifted ways of handling
file permissions and locations (ghosted folders) as
well as the actual benefits in possible speed and
security. Way too much information has been obscured
by MicroSoft in Vista that should be points of pride.
Lets hope at least they get windows 7 right!

It's actually upto the beta testers and commercial
folks what and how things run, as well as most
appreciated features to include (in my experience).
Typically beta testers appear to have some favorite
applications and games they keep 're-installing' for
various beta iterations and fail to really work at it
with demo's, trials, of available softwares as well
as giving more 'I like this..because' not nit picnics.

MicroSoft has been very good in many areas that are
not normally highly publicized which do show that they
are committed to quality and consumer concerns...they
have released the WAIK for general download which
allows one to recut the Vista Install DVD to fit or refit
for enterprise deployment and also for special needs...
it isn't easy to do so but it is available so you can to
a degree fix/amend or remove problems in Vista yourself!
At the very least create usable recovery and repair CD's.

So..I usually expect to see folks here that have problems
but have limited experience or skills and need_help, I also
am surprised at the lack of quality and details in complaints
from folks that allegedly know what they are talking about.

In short...if WinXP is too good then it's only because
it's essentially Vista's little brother.

heh, Windows7 is a mystery...tell them where you want to go.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'
 
U

Unknown

Why do you say they were stupid? That, as you call it, was a business
decision. PC's were and still are not their primary business. Like I said,
you don't know IBM.
 
R

robert.clere

It's a moot point. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft discontinues support for
XP, so you have to bite the bullet now or bite it later. The sooner you move to Vista the
less grief later on. It's taken me about 4 months to get Vista Ultimate to run the way I
want it to but once you get past all the driver issues and 64 bit incompatibilites on the
web, it runs great, in fact it flies!
 
Ad

Advertisements

W

Winda

Like Linux is a big deal, not knowing about Linux... So What!

- Winda

| or linux...
|
| | > You sure don't know anything about IBM do you?
| >
| > | >>
| <snip>?
| >> Vista maybe a monumental mistake, I do not know, what I do know is a $US
| >> 10
| >> Billion mistake would have taken Mac, Linux, maybe even IBM out of
| >> existance. Yet
| >> MS can afford to develop another OS.
| >>
| >> - Winda
| >>
| >>
| >> | >>
| >>
| >
| >
|
|
 
W

Winda

Agreed. By that time I'll bite the bullet and take on "Windows 7". Allegedly to be
released 2010, Windows XP support will continue at least until then.



- Winda




| It's a moot point. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft discontinues
support for
| XP, so you have to bite the bullet now or bite it later. The sooner you move to
Vista the
| less grief later on. It's taken me about 4 months to get Vista Ultimate to run
the way I
| want it to but once you get past all the driver issues and 64 bit
incompatibilites on the
| web, it runs great, in fact it flies!
|
| |
| >
| > Only they themselves were stupid enough to come out second best with Mr.
Gates,
| >
| > - Winda
| >
| > | > | You sure don't know anything about IBM do you?
| > | | > | >
| > | > "...Microsoft is soooo stupid!..."
| > | >
| > | > Some sources (google search) claim MS spent approx. $US 10 Billion, to
| > | > develop
| > | > Vista, some others claim $US 5 Billion. Whether Vista failed or not, I did
| > | > not
| > | > break MS.
| > | > Stupid they are not.
| > | >
| > | > "...but if they mess it up as bad as they did Vista, Mac will dominate
| > | > Windows."
| > | >
| > | > Not with Nickels and Dimes they (Mac) will not. Even without any mistakes,
| > | > Mac
| > | > still did not dominate, well even their hardware now will now run Windows,
| > | > that's
| > | > what saved them.
| > | >
| > | > Vista maybe a monumental mistake, I do not know, what I do know is a $US
| > | > 10
| > | > Billion mistake would have taken Mac, Linux, maybe even IBM out of
| > | > existance. Yet
| > | > MS can afford to develop another OS.
| > | >
| > | > - Winda
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
 
W

Winda

Neither do you.

- Winda

| Why do you say they were stupid? That, as you call it, was a business
| decision. PC's were and still are not their primary business. Like I said,
| you don't know IBM.
| | >
| > Only they themselves were stupid enough to come out second best with Mr.
| > Gates,
| >
| > - Winda
| >
| > | > | You sure don't know anything about IBM do you?
| > | | > | >
| > | > "...Microsoft is soooo stupid!..."
| > | >
| > | > Some sources (google search) claim MS spent approx. $US 10 Billion, to
| > | > develop
| > | > Vista, some others claim $US 5 Billion. Whether Vista failed or not, I
| > did
| > | > not
| > | > break MS.
| > | > Stupid they are not.
| > | >
| > | > "...but if they mess it up as bad as they did Vista, Mac will dominate
| > | > Windows."
| > | >
| > | > Not with Nickels and Dimes they (Mac) will not. Even without any
| > mistakes,
| > | > Mac
| > | > still did not dominate, well even their hardware now will now run
| > Windows,
| > | > that's
| > | > what saved them.
| > | >
| > | > Vista maybe a monumental mistake, I do not know, what I do know is a
| > $US
| > | > 10
| > | > Billion mistake would have taken Mac, Linux, maybe even IBM out of
| > | > existance. Yet
| > | > MS can afford to develop another OS.
| > | >
| > | > - Winda
| > | >
| > | >
| > message
| > | > | > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Tiberius

Stop it already with that "under the hood" propaganda!

No body cares a heck what is under the hood when thay cannot use the
operating system as it should be used..\


vista is crap because its OVER the hood is so bad you cant even benefit from
what is UNDER the hood!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top