Can we please save Windows XP?

[Spin]

Microsoft plans to end most sales of Windows XP on June 30, despite a deep
reluctance by many business and individuals about moving to Vista. I
personally believe Vista has too heavy of a memory and disk space footprint,
less snappy performance, and it fails to allow one to go back to the classic
look and feel of XP. For instance, what happened to the old fashioned
vanilla folders in Explorer? And the lack of an "UP" button in Vista's
Explorer as well. (Now why did the have to take that away?)

Sign petition here.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

 

[Spin]

If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware.

 

[Gordon]

If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware.

So you'll be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy disk drives,
640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then?

IDIOT.

 

[~Alex T.~A.K.A. Makaveli213~]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080404/tc_cmp/207001662;_ylt=AnNydtKNl.1mFNnYLCU1CG.or7oF

Apparently you have not seen the news that XP will be continued.

So please take this to the XP area and not post this in the Vista area?
Thank you.

 

[SAM-R]

You are beating a dead horse.

 

[Spin]

Where did I say I would be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy
disk drives,
640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then? Why are you so defensive?

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

So you'll be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy disk drives,
640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then?

That computers is more suited to MS-DOS. You can't run Windows 3.1 on it.

ss.

 

[Gordon]

Where did I say I would be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy
disk drives,
640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then? Why are you so defensive?

Ever heard of sarcasm?

I assumed as you obviously DON'T enjoy "OSes which use up vast amounts of
system and disk space resources"
then you would be using one that doesn't. As in my example.

 

[adam]

The "UP" button was replaced with breadcrumbs which are much better.

 

[Spin]

XP is MUCH LESS of a hog than Vista. I would purchase a new Operating
System from Microsoft even if it included NOTHING more than new driver
support and was leaner on resources. In other words if the appearance
didn't change I would still buy it (for example Windows 98 Second Edition).

 

[Gordon]

XP is MUCH LESS of a hog than Vista.

And by extrapolation Windows 3.1 is a HUGELY less resources hog than XP. So
why not use that?

 

[Spin]

"~Alex T.~A.K.A. Makaveli213~"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080404/tc_cmp/207001662;_ylt=AnNydtKNl.1mFNnYLCU1CG.or7oF

Apparently you have not seen the news that XP will be continued.

So please take this to the XP area and not post this in the Vista area?
Thank you.

I posted this here in case there were unhappy Vista users.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Microsoft plans to end most sales of Windows XP on June 30, despite a deep
reluctance by many business and individuals about moving to Vista. I
personally believe Vista has too heavy of a memory and disk space
footprint, less snappy performance, and it fails to allow one to go back
to the classic look and feel of XP. For instance, what happened to the
old fashioned vanilla folders in Explorer? And the lack of an "UP" button
in Vista's Explorer as well. (Now why did the have to take that away?)

Sign petition here.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

You may want to read this.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

Is InfoWorld really trying to save XP or generate traffic and ad revenue?

 

[Spin]

You are beating a dead horse.

If Microsoft doesn't hear from it's users, we will be forced to accept their
new operating systems with all of it's "good, bad and ugly" with no
recourse. Again, the vast amounts of system and disk space
resources required by Vista, the lack of being able to go back to a classic
interface and folders look, the renaming of old adminsitartive tools, this
all gets bothersome after while.

 

[Gordon]

If Microsoft doesn't hear from it's users, we will be forced to accept
their new operating systems with all of it's "good, bad and ugly" with no
recourse. Again, the vast amounts of system and disk space
resources required by Vista,

Sorry, I don't get you. New machines today are BUILT to use Vista. Large
fast-access HDDs are the norm. Dual core processors are very common. 2GB RAM
is almost standard. Vista uses no more resources proportionally, in a
machine BUILT for Vista than does XP in a machine BUILT for XP.

 

[SAM-R]

PressPass: Will Microsoft extend sales of other editions of Windows XP?

Dix: No, there is no plan to extend sales of other editions of Windows XP
beyond June 30, 2008. We are very proud of the progress that we have made
with Windows Vista over the last sixteen months. Since its launch, Windows
Vista has become the fastest-selling operating system in Microsoft history,
and more than 100 million Windows Vista licenses have been sold worldwide.

Last fall, our OEM partners asked us to extend sales of Windows XP to give
their customers more time to transition to Windows Vista while we worked
with other software vendors to expand application compatibility. Today, more
than 2,500 applications have received the Windows Vista logo (a ten-fold
increase since launch) and more than 78,000 devices and components are
supported by drivers either in-box or on Windows Update. On NPD's list of
the top 100 consumer applications selling at retail, 98 are now
compatible-and the latest versions of the top free downloads (Adobe Reader,
Shockwave and iTunes) are all compatible.

Given this landscape and after consulting with our partners, apart from
today's announced extension of Windows XP Home for ULCPCs, we are
maintaining the timelines we announced in September.

I should also note that there will also be no impact on our technical
support plans-mainstream technical support will continue to be available
until April 2009 and extended support will continue until April 2014.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2008/apr08/04-03xpeos.mspx

Straight from MSFT.

 

[Alias]

Sorry, I don't get you. New machines today are BUILT to use Vista. Large
fast-access HDDs are the norm. Dual core processors are very common. 2GB
RAM is almost standard. Vista uses no more resources proportionally, in
a machine BUILT for Vista than does XP in a machine BUILT for XP.

Translation: if you want Vista, be prepared to fork out money for
hardware or for a new computer. The new Ubuntu runs fine on my Athlon XP
2200+ with one gig of RAM and an nVidia 256MB video card.

www.ubuntu.com

Alias

 

[Frank]

Translation: if you want Vista, be prepared to fork out money for
hardware or for a new computer. The new Ubuntu runs fine on my Athlon XP
2200+ with one gig of RAM and an nVidia 256MB video card.

www.ubuntu.com

Alias

Translation: ubuntu is doomed...LOL!!!
Frank

 

[Gordon]

Translation: if you want Vista, be prepared to fork out money for hardware
or for a new computer.

As you had to in the translation from W98 to XP......so nothing new there
then....

The new Ubuntu runs fine on my Athlon XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and an
nVidia 256MB video card.

7.04 runs fine on my 2.3 GHz Celeron Desktop with 1 GB RAM, as does
XP.....wouldn't put Vista on it. Vista DOES run well however on my Dual Core
T2330-processored 2GB RAM laptop....

 

[Spin]

And by extrapolation Windows 3.1 is a HUGELY less resources hog than XP.
So why not use that?

Windows 3.1 was not part of the discussion.