Microsoft wasn't quite ready to comment when rumors about yet another reprieve for Windows XP first starting circulating
late last week, but that now seems to have changed, with a spokesperson for the company reportedly confirming in an email to InformationWeek that it is indeed pushing the cut-off date back six months, all the way to July 31st, 2009. According to the spokesperson, that's being done to ensure that customers moving to Vista are "
making that transition with confidence and that it is as smooth as possible," adding that, "providing downgrade media for a few more months is part of that commitment." Or, you know, it could have something to do with the fact that some folks don't want to move to Vista at all. Take your pick.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ChiWax @ Oct 8th 2008 5:55PM
After using Vista on more than two machines for well over a year and a half this stuff is sounding more and more like someone telling me that showers aren't a good idea...Q
ethana2 @ Oct 8th 2008 6:10PM
RMS does NOT represent us!
ChiWax @ Oct 8th 2008 6:14PM
Is the anger because I figured out how to use Vista? I swear to you all it was not hard to do or at least it didn't feel difficult for me. Maybe it was difficult and I just didn't notice. All I know is that it didn't feel difficult and it didn't cost that much. Oh well...Q
The1 @ Oct 8th 2008 6:51PM
Why is everyone so down on Microsoft? It's great that they're offering an almost 10 year old version of Windows as a downgrade to Vista.
If only Apple was as kind as Microsoft, and offered to downgrade all of the computers it sells to Classic Mac OS 8
:-)
simon @ Oct 8th 2008 6:53PM
I've got Vista on 3 Vaio lappies in the office. On the first one from August 2007 I really disliked it until SP1 fixed most of the problems (still has odd quirks - I blame Sony). On the second one from December 2007 it was a little quirky but ditching the Sony-Ericsson software and running SP1 fixed it all. On the third one from February no problems before or after SP1. My business partner running OSX is jealous of how my lappies just work - but he's drunk too much Koolaid to switch
CraigJ @ Oct 8th 2008 6:59PM
Here's my problem with this. Vista is noticeably slower on my machine than XP (yes, new machine, yes SP1, been here before) Figuring out how to use it isn't the problem. Spending the time to figure out how to use is when it doesn't do anything for me that XP (or 2000 for that matter) doesn't do is the issue. Why would I want to spend time learning Vista when it provide me no benefits. It is NOT more stable than XP with SP2. My Vista 64 box has never crashed (18 months). My XP box (going on 12 months) has also never crashed, and it's a lot faster at the same tasks.
Vista still uses NTFS. NTFS was really really cool. In 1995.
Vista requires ridiculous amounts of video memory for Aero Glass, and it really bangs on the GPU.
File copies are painfully slow. It has been suggested that this is to DRM enforcement, but MS isn't talking.
In business, time is money. Why would any business want to spend the capital to invest in new machines for their users, for no discernible benefit? My it department did the analysis. There really is no benefit, especially given the cost, and the number of legacy business apps that don't run so good on Vista.
Microsoft should, IMO, kill the backwards compatibility in Windows 7. You want to run win 32 applications? fine, here is a virtual machine for you to run them in.
Speed up Windows 7 30% (as compared to Vista), give me a modern file system, fix security at a fundamental level (not this UAC crap) figure out how to render a decent interface on a business class machine (integrated graphics), give me 3 versions (UMPC, Home, Pro) not 6. (actually I'd prefer 1, ala OSX) Do this and I'll upgrade from XP to 7, otherwise I'm bailing on Windows permanently for greener pastures. If I'm going to have to invest a bunch if time figuring out a new OS, it's going to be one that I don't have to pay for.
Mark Anderson @ Oct 8th 2008 7:13PM
It is, especially when Engadget doesn't directly report the rest of the comment from the MS spokesman which states the downgrade is only available on Ultimate or Business and only to XP Pro. The target audience is small businesses with entrenched hardware costs in terms of peripherals and legacy software.
But hey, that doesn't get clicks, right?
Mark Anderson @ Oct 8th 2008 7:20PM
@CraigJ
Two questions:
1) Specs of machine please.
2) What are you doing with it when you say 'slow'?
I'm not doubting your personal experience it's just that every single person I know who uses Vista and who used to use XP claims it's as fast or faster than XP, myself included. I'm interested to hear why your experience is different because it doesn't seem to reflect the mainstream.
CraigJ @ Oct 8th 2008 7:43PM
Core 2 Duo @ 2.6 MHz, Dual channel ATI video card with 256MB (X1500 I think, not there), Dual 7200 RPM SATA 3 drives, non-RAID, 4GB RAM.
File copies are the primary thing. Copying a 16GB file (a VPC image) on disk (no network) takes a couple of hours. No one has an answer. I use VPC extensibility, and this costs me HOURS per week.
Multiple little annoyances, for example, on XP I can hist CTRL-ALT-DEL, then hit enter to lock the machine. On Vista, I have to wait a few seconds before hitting enter. Not a big deal, but highly annoying multiple times per day. Office is noticeably slower, network access is notably slower, the HDs are always churning for no apparent reason.
It's not so much a that I hate Vista, it's just that I don't see the benefit. I've tried to see it, but it just doesn't make any sense for me to upgrade or purchase machines with Vista.
Mark @ Oct 8th 2008 8:22PM
@CraigJ
I love people like you. Makes me feel good knowing that once I graduated from uni, there won't be any lack of idiots whom to sell garbage to.
1) XP is in fact not faster than Vista. It may ostensibly have
kojo87 @ Oct 8th 2008 8:40PM
@CraigJ
you can get a X1550 PRO with 256 RAM for $27 on Newegg. get some new hardware
and 2.6MHz proc just made me laugh. you meant 2.6GHz right?
sidd @ Oct 9th 2008 8:18AM
@CraigJ
or u can hit the win + L key to lock the computer instantly... on xp AND vista...
Andir3.0 @ Oct 8th 2008 10:12PM
Ah yes... the buy new hardware excuse as to why Vista is slow... When will you people learn that people like their homes... their PCs... their cars... their life ... and everything else to just work without having to buy something new to do it?
There is simply no reason for Vista to be slower than XP in anything. With major OS upgrades things should be more refined, faster, and more reliable. Not the reverse. Steps should be taken to make the OS modular, extensible and scalable so that someone could, if they wanted to, install the OS on their existing machine. It may not have all the bells and whistles, but it should at least work.
Nihility @ Oct 8th 2008 11:36PM
@Craig
Windows button + L
Can't help you with the copying speed though :(
CraigJ @ Oct 9th 2008 12:15AM
Mark, maybe once you've graduated from uni you'll be able to finish a sentence.
kojo, this is a business machine, not a gaming machine, are you suggesting that a 2.6Ghz Core 2 duo processor machine with the way I have it set up is not sufficient for Vista?
Jordan @ Oct 9th 2008 12:22AM
@ andir..
why would a major os upgrade require LESS powerful hardware? historically, major upgrades have always required more powerful hardware than their predecessors. win95 had greater sys reqs than win3.1, 98 greater than 95, xp greater than any of the win9x systems. osx 10.5 requires 6 more gigabytes of hdd space compared to 10.4, and it needs double the ram and a processor 500mhz faster, to boot. ubuntu distros also require more powerful hardware with every subsequent release.
so... when has an os upgrade EVER been simply to streamline the system to allow it to run on less powerful hardware?
kojo87 @ Oct 10th 2008 9:09PM
CraigJ: not at all. i ran Vista Ultimate fine with an AMD Athlon 64x2 2.0GHz, 1GB of RAM and an X1650PRO. im saying the graphics card is to blame but it makes sense that, since it is a business machine, you aren't going to have a high-end card. Aero glass requires a newer GPU. just turn it off if it doesnt work for you. everything else is more than ample to run Vista.
although Aero shouldn't be too bad if i could run it on my old card (only a minor upgrade from yours) that thing played BF2142 and Oblivion without much problem.
Brandon L @ Dec 9th 2008 4:34PM
@Craig J
I wholeheartedly agree. Most of the reason I'm not upgrading is:
1. The cost of the OS. I have several clean Ghost images/hard drives with XP Pro SP2 already, and I see no reason to pay for an upgrade.
2. The complication of Vista. Sooo many versions, so little time. And each version requiring diff system requirements. Which brings me to my next reason.
3. Cost of upgrading my system. The last computer that I paid for was a 3Ghz P4/1GB RAM/60GB HDD/ATi 128MB Mobility Radeon 9600 ECS laptop in 2001. Before that was an old 1.6GHz P4/256MB/32MB Ati Rage/20GB HDD Dell Dimension desktop eons ago. My current desktop setup was salvaged from some old parts at my old school: 3.06Ghz P4/2GB RAM/Nvidia Geforece4 MX440 128MB/80GB HDD/120GB HDD.
All running XP SP2 quite fine with no major problems. For me to run Vista with its Aero interface, I know I'd at least need a dual core CPU. I won't shell out the money to build a new desktop, as I've already planned to make my next computer purchase a black Macbook (2.4Ghz C2 Duo/4GB RAM).
Johan S @ Oct 8th 2008 5:58PM
The biggest mistake Microsoft is making with Vista is letting people install it on machines with less than 2 GB of RAM.
ethana2 @ Oct 8th 2008 6:09PM
All rhetoric aside, the mistake was not making it exclusively 64 bit.
CT A @ Oct 8th 2008 6:18PM
I have Vista on a 1 GB of Ram Desktop and it works WAY better than my 2 GB of Ram Vista Laptop.
lowdef @ Oct 8th 2008 6:20PM
then YOU need to kill the bloatware, freeware, shareware, trial shit on your 2GB machine, then tell us the results
CT A @ Oct 8th 2008 6:42PM
"then YOU need to kill the bloatware, freeware, shareware, trial shit on your 2GB machine, then tell us the results"
OMIGOD, I would have never though of that!
You would think the 2 Gb of Ram, 1.6 Ghz Laptop would out do the 1 Gb, 3.0 Ghz Desktop but no.. no it doesn't.
My point is, There's nothing wrong with installing Vista on a 1 Gb of Ram Machine as long as it has a good CPU.
MioTheGreat @ Oct 8th 2008 7:28PM
ethana2:
Vista was released at the end of 2006.
At that point, Intel had only JUST come out with the Core 2 Duo. So basically every Intel laptop on the market at the time of Vista's release was 32-bit only.
There was absolutely no reason to make it 64-bit only.
lawyer bird @ Oct 8th 2008 11:34PM
What I don't understand is why microsoft decided to rush out Vista as early as they did.
It would be fine if we were still using XP for an extra year or two, as most people still are anyway and It's a really solid OS. Vista offers very few worthwhile new features..they should have put another 2 years of polish and development into it and let hardware manufacturers get their drivers ready for LAUNCH. Then we wouldn't be clamoring for windows 7 like we are.
thedesolate1 @ Oct 9th 2008 11:10PM
It is my belief that Microsoft didn't optimize vista for speed instead they needed a bloated OS to push hardware sales because as you can see from netbooks it doesn't take much to run a decent windows xp box that does many and all the things the average consumer uses his computer for. I am a power user and other than Direct X10 and 64 bit I see no compelling reason to upgrade. So I am not sure exactly who Microsoft is gunning for to buy Vista... other than people razzle dazzled by the Aero interface. Im going to build my next rig because it is a bitch to find XP drivers for most new PC's that come with vista.
Paradox @ Oct 8th 2008 6:01PM
What will happen to those persons that bought or are going to buy the the small laptops (ex: Eee PC - Asus) that comes with Windows XP ??
notYou @ Oct 8th 2008 6:05PM
What part of "screwed" don't you understand?
(grin)
ChiWax @ Oct 8th 2008 6:04PM
I think you just revealed the real reason XP isn't going anywhere so soon. It's a great OS for lower performance machines. A fully updated Vista on a powerful machine should be fine for people who know how to use a computer though...Q
bangladeshiluv @ Oct 8th 2008 6:09PM
They'll have to downgrade to Windows 95. Start it up!
Ryan Karolak @ Oct 8th 2008 6:16PM
If I recall correctly, Microsoft will continue OEM support for XP Home for ultraportables. This ultraportable XP will have some limitations such as screen size to ensure it's being installed on an ultraportable/netbook and not a normal laptop or desktop.
Yodaman @ Oct 8th 2008 6:05PM
I don't get the Vista hate. I love Vista. It's a huge improvement over XP in many ways. And, I am not some idiot Microsoft fan boy, either. I'm a Unix & Linux sysadmin, all of my servers run Linux and I own a Macbook, too. I'm starting to think this Vista hate is just a bunch of idiots jumping on bandwagons they know nothing about. Seriously, spec a decent machine instead of buying value-village shit and you'll be better off with a more stable and capable system than buying the cheap box with XP.
Valicore @ Oct 8th 2008 6:16PM
Agreed! I mean Vista was a huge resource hog at first, but now it's fine. I had no preference when it came to XP or Vista, until I had to use XP for the first time in about a year. XP was great, but it's all about evolution. People didn't say "I refuse to buy a color TV 'cause my old 5 inch black and white works fine and is cheaper!" Well, they probably did, but they were stupid.
Charles @ Oct 8th 2008 6:29PM
>> It's a huge improvement over XP in many ways.
I've seen many comments like along these lines but all of them fail to elaborate on exactly how Vista an improvement over XP. Care to enlighten us?
Ruben @ Oct 8th 2008 6:29PM
Screw a high end machine.
A fresh install of Vista on my AAOne has run perfectly fine. Im even using Word 07 along with Visual Studio 08 and a browser along with the Zune software right now, and alt tabbing between is swift, even Flip 3D, to my complete suprise, functions well (not as fast as my quad desktop, but it works).
Whats even better is with ReadyBoost, a second SD slot, and an 8Gig high speed SD card in there, it runs better than when i had a fresh XP instance on it, which i quickly switched because of the little things that make me like Vista that i just cant live without anymore.
Im really blown away that people can spout such bullshit, to be honest. Sure, my netbook with the linux distro can boot in 30 seconds (btw. Vista is useable on mine in one minute, no bloat ware at all). The ignorant can never shut their mouth.
ethana2 @ Oct 8th 2008 6:35PM
Ruben: the next round of distros, provided an MTron or Intel SSD, will kick that down to 5 seconds.
My machine wakes up from suspend in 3, I really don't think people should /shut down/ as much as they do.
Yodaman @ Oct 8th 2008 6:54PM
Charles: Yeah - It's much more stable; boots faster; suspend & other power management functions work better (I've had problems getting XP machines to come out of suspend reliably in the past; no issues with Vista); as Ruben said, switching between applications is faster; and, yes, it's prettier.
There were initial problems. CPU use would spike and make everything, including the mouse, lag on heavy network use. That was entirely unacceptable but it must have been fixed, because I haven't seen the problem in months (I'm set to auto-update). Had some issues with a couple pieces of old software that wouldn't run under Vista and had to be upgraded, and in one case abandoned. So, you know, it hasn't been entirely trouble free, but I'm still glad I made the switch and I won't go back to XP.
Ruben @ Oct 8th 2008 6:55PM
but ethan2, those are the best case numbers.
That 30 second boot up time for the acer linux distro was a best case.
The XP was about a minute and it also was also a best case (didnt take me long to get rid of the XP install).
My Vista install with Live Mesh, Live One Care, and Live messenger starting up in one minute is quite fast.
And, like you, i put my netbook to sleep. No one should be shutting down their laptop. Thats not the point of such a device. But bootup times are a general indicator of the performance of ones setup, which is why i even bring it up.
People speak like Vista rapes their computer (and the user), but it just doesnt.
Kris S. @ Oct 8th 2008 7:06PM
My clean installed copy of Windows XP SP3 begs to differ.
BigD145 @ Oct 8th 2008 7:08PM
Early adopters got burned and it's stuck. I have it on a multiboot system and I despise most of its automation. It does too much without asking me specifics, I'm not talking about the permissions issue, like where I want to install software X. I.E. it doesn't ask at all. I won't do any serious work on Vista until at least SP3.
Byrdman @ Oct 8th 2008 7:23PM
@bigD
you know there is a little button you can press that will expand the dialog box to ask you where you want to install it, right?
Ruben @ Oct 8th 2008 9:34PM
@Kris S.:
1. Are you using a netbook, and which one?
2. Are you nLiteing?
Ruben @ Oct 8th 2008 9:34PM
@Kris S.:
1. Are you using a netbook, and which one?
2. Are you nLiteing?
Kris S. @ Oct 8th 2008 10:48PM
Actually I downloaded Windows XP SP3 (The whole OS) from Microsoft's website, forgot where I got it though. Just needed a valid key.
dotAaron @ Oct 8th 2008 6:05PM
Oh microsoft, Mojave and Seinfeld not working out as you expected? :P
ChiWax @ Oct 8th 2008 6:07PM
All of my Microsoft products are working fine. None of the stuff I read about on here ever happens with my Microsoft products. Go figure...Q
ethana2 @ Oct 8th 2008 6:23PM
Thanks for your submission. We're glad you want to be part of our campaign, but for the sake of continuity, we need you to say: "I'm a PC and I..."
The whole recording should last about 5 seconds. Once you've got that down, re-submit. We will show the world what kind of PC you are.
*grin*
digitallysick @ Oct 8th 2008 6:06PM
You mean upgrade, you can still upgrade to xp from visa until july 31 2009. But you are better of with linux/osx86 leopard on the whitebox
ChiWax @ Oct 8th 2008 6:14PM
Does the "whitebox" come with spell check? Q.
ethana2 @ Oct 8th 2008 6:08PM
you have no chance to survive make more time