Windows

Do you want to "save" Windows XP?

InfoWorld has started an online petition and campaign to "save" Windows XP from Microsoft's planned obsolescence at the end of the year. In the first 36 hours of the campaign, over 12,500 people had signed the petition and added comments to the Save XP Blog.

InfoWorld has started an online petition and campaign to "save" Windows XP from Microsoft's planned obsolescence at the end of the year. In the first 36 hours of the campaign, over 12,500 people had signed the petition and added comments to the Save XP Blog.

From Infoworld:

The vast majority of comments supported the petition drive, providing a variety of reasons that both individuals and companies do not want to lose the option to keep new XP licenses available after June 30. Lack of compelling benefits in Vista, coupled with the training, support, and other costs of upgrading was the most cited reason. Some cited compatibility concerns.

An IT strategist with the Burton Group, Ken Anderson, came up with an apt analogy of XP's impending demise.

Anderson likened the reaction to XP's impending demise to what happened in the 1980s when Coca-Cola replaced its classic Coke soda formula with New Coke, causing massive protests and forcing the company to bring back the now-rechristened Coke Classic. "XP has come to the point of being Coke Classic," he said.

Save Windows XP (InfoWorld)

12,500 sign 'Save XP' petition (InfoWorld)

This campaign comes on the heels of reports that Vista shipped on only 39% of all PCs shipped in 2007, with small businesses choosing XP by a 2 to 1 margin. Many businesses don't want to go through an expensive upgrade cycle, which would be required for many older PCs, as the hardware requirements for Vista are far higher than those for XP. Another big issue for businesses is training, as retooling users on a new operating system can be an expensive proposition. At least one writer has called for Microsoft to build a business model for XP that "delivers what users want, at a level of cost and disruption they are prepared to accept."

Vista Still Trails Windows XP In Shipments -- And Performance (bMighty)

Do we need a campaign to save XP? (ZDNet UK)

I have an XP desktop at work along with a tablet running Vista. Personally, I am perfectly happy with XP, but I am not turned off by my Vista machine, because it has the hardware to run the new OS pretty well. However, we have nearly 300 computers deployed that will not meet the hardware requirements for Vista. In my opinion, upgrading the RAM for all of those machines is a project that we will not engage in. Do you think XP needs to be "saved"?

81 comments
deepsand
deepsand

Given my druthers, we'd not be so beholding to MS to begin with.

AV .
AV .

We have a good amount of legacy hardware and software to support that isn't certified with Vista. Sure, it might work but how well? How could I ever justify to my management the cost and need to go to Vista if there is nothing to gain and everything to lose? I work for a smaller business that doesn't have the deep pockets of an enterprise or the staff to deal with it. I have to admit that I've never seriously considered a non-MS solution in my business environment. My environment depends heavily on MS Office and document management. It would be hard to change. AV

deepsand
deepsand

As oft time noted in many discussions here, many of us still use, have clients that use, or know others who still use Win 9x and W2K. None of this is because we're "stuck in the past," but because it gets the job done. MS's constant drum beat of upgrade/migrate needs to end. And, that will only happen when customers refuse to jump on their latest bandwagon.

deepsand
deepsand

Does the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation make private grants?

AV .
AV .

So it will never stop. Personally I don't have to jump on their upgrade bandwagon, but professionally I do because we are a Windows shop and not likely to change that right now. I still have W2k and XP running. We're getting rid of W2k this year and will become an all XP shop. Its likely we'll run XP until M$ comes up with a better operating system. It isn't Vista. I hope it could be Windows 7. If not, it might be Linux. AV

AV .
AV .

XP is a reliable operating system that works well with everything. In a business environment, that is crucial. I work in a 140 user environment along with another IT person. The last project I want to take on is the upgrade of our PCs to Vista. There is nothing to gain but lots of problems. The costs in lost productivity alone are huge. For what? I'd rather spend my time on other projects that have some business value. I've been looking at Windows 7 as a possible replacement for XP one day. I hope MS will make that version more business-friendly, based on the dismal adoption rate of Vista by business. Right now, we buy PCs with Vista and then downgrade them to XP because we have to. Alot of our equipment doesn't support Vista. Long live XP. AV

jonybader
jonybader

"Users Fight to Save Windows XP" ... And me? No thanks ... I will simply walk away and be done with Microsoft forever! Sure I like Windows XP Pro because it's stable ... it works well ... and it's an industry standard around the world ... but it, like all other M$ products, it lacks ingenuity ... and unless you've familiarized yourself with a Mac, you have no idea of what I'm talking about. But don't worry ... I am a Mac convert ... I'm not a fanatical Mac propaganda machine. Enough about Mac superiority (yes ... the commercials are not only funny, but they're realistic). For those of you still reading, I bought my first Intel-based Mac a year ago and I love it! I run Windows XP as a virtual machine inside of Mac OS X (Leopard). And just 4 hours ago, I purchased another GB of memory for each of my two PC's; my plan was to run Linux as the host OS on them, and VMWare to run virtual machines of Windows XP within them. This announcement may render my plan a "temporary" exercise in futility. HEY MICROSOFT! I WILL NOT SWITCH (OR DOWNGRADE) TO VISTA ... and if you quit supporting XP, then I'll remove my virtual XP machines and make the conversion to the Mac platform across the board, except for my Linux intrusion detection systems, servers, etc.. Yeah, I am alone as I type this e-mail, but I can assure you that "I" will become "we" ... and "we" will become "most" ... and hopefully "most" will become "all" ... so go ahead and quit supporting XP ... you'll finally motivate me/us to say goodbye forever! P.S. I have a friend that's been running his same Mac for 8 years now! And he just put the newest operating system (Leopard) on it. Here's a challenge for you: try installing any MS operating system on your 8 year old hardware. Later ... Rich

wlhelms
wlhelms

I believe it's the right thing to do seeing as how Vista hasn't really stood up under the tests. As many have stated: At least it works, and work well.

madmax4tex
madmax4tex

Save 'XP' vista stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

thomas_yohe
thomas_yohe

vista, I must say, is similer to ME. it is just a slight improvment and not evan that will betrue till the bags are worked out. xp needs to stick around for a while longer

jrich
jrich

XP Professional SP2 is the best OS I have ever used. Please don't retire it! Save XP!

bijaya_prakash
bijaya_prakash

There is so many device driver is not working in windows vista. if it will provide by the vender for windows vista then also it will not working fine in windows vista. so it will required to keep xp in the market. my company sign a EA with microsoft. still microsoft dont have solution for my problem

rite2good
rite2good

XP PRO SP2 is far better as far as compatability goes vs.VISTA.

herincxdjr
herincxdjr

Yes, It's totally suitable for most Home users.

carolyncabrales
carolyncabrales

Yes...and get rid of Office 2007. It is so NOT user-friendly. Save Office 2003 as well!

mrogers
mrogers

Maybe this will make sense to even the simples-minded people... 1. Macroshaft = Windows OS 2. New PCs = New Windows OS Sales 3. Higher Hardware Requirements = REASON for new PC sales (People want faster machines, they have to buy them) 4. New PC sales + Windows OS = Money in the shaft machine's pocket. They are making this stuff like Vista so incompatible, like rendering older hardware unusable so we will simply buy newer faster machines. I have a Radeon 9000 graphics card that still to this day does what I need it to (I'm not hardcore, but I like games). It works like a champ in XP. In Vista, there are no drivers. When you do try to install the drivers for it (the default MS drivers work fine), then Vista "Deactivates" itself. HOW GAY IS THAT? Thank goodness my company didn't want their 5 Vista Business licenses that they were given because now one of them is unusable. I can't even re-activate it after a reinstall! Telephone MS support says I need to buy a new license since I have "significantly" changed the hardware in my machine. The stupid part is, I haven't changed it in years. I simply tried to install a freakin driver. Need I say more?

Beth Blakely
Beth Blakely

This little feud ends here and now. This is your official warning. ~Beth

bubbles1142
bubbles1142

Absolutely, it is doubtlessly Bloat Ware but then it is also the most successful O/S that Redmond has ever released. I simply makes things happen, without fuss, without drama, with quiet efficiency. Forget trying to outdo "Apple" with cute ware, improve upon what is the finest O/S created

adeegee
adeegee

Yes!! Definitely!! Absolutely!!

atrailhart
atrailhart

I Have both XP & Vista an if Mircosoft stops support on XP I Will switch every system out and go Full time Linux !

lastchip
lastchip

If you really need to use Windows at all, then I suppose XP is the best choice. But there's nothing XP can do that I can't do in Linux, so to me, it's a non-issue.

somebozo
somebozo

they really need to get rid of time wasting flashy gui and supply something simple, remove repetitive confirm this confirm that dialouge boxes giving using a false sense of security while proving very annoying..

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

If Microsoft expects us to go through the expense, pain and agony of an upgrade like this, there is going to have to be more reason to do so. XP was a significant evolutionary step past Win9x, and after the initial problems were overcome, more than worth the trouble. XP wasn't even all that much slower than Win9x, and could even run on perhaps 50% of the hardware in place. However, almost every relevant evolutionary feature was stripped from Vista. Worse than that, instead of 2 "flavors", there are now 6, with little more purpose in mind than extorting more money out of consumers and thoroughly confusing them at the same time. We're left with a bloated mess that is less stable than XP and not even half as fast. Oh, and it's designed all around a DRM scheme that is all about everyone else's interest instead of the end-user's. And for this the IT world is expected to pay up, replace and reinvent everything? Not going to do it. If I am going to be forced to go to that kind of trouble and expense, I might as well make the leap to Linux. I doubt I will be alone. If Microsoft wants me to replace everything, the next OS is going to have to: Perform better than the previous one (or at least comparably on the same hardware); be more manageable, more stable; No more than 2 versions; implement the revolutionary technologies that were originally promised for Vista. And that's just from the top of my head. Come on Microsoft. You're a marketing company. You should have known better than this, especially after the "ME" fiasco!

amj2010
amj2010

If I were Billy G. I would not have updated WINXP, but put all the energy and effort in polishing and brushing up what went wrong in Vista, by shrinking 5 copies into one, lowering it in price let's say *99.95 or so and end up the support for Winxp in january this year.....

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

What does it matter? Whether or not XP stays around, the only way to stick it to Microsucks is to migrate to Linux. The only problem is Windoze is so mainstream that it will be virtually impossible to "teach" a new OS to users. That is, ofcourse, unless your users are gifted at computers...but then we would be out of the job, wouldn't we? Face it...it's a money making scheme - they don't care if they pump out quality products (IMHO Win98 was the last time THAT happened...) or total crap like Vista...they only want to make MONEY. Don't get me wrong, I would take XP hands down over Vista any day of the week, it's simply a better product in comparison. I will keep XP on all of my machines as long as possible.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

What exactly do you define as "saving"? Do you mean something besides MS continuing to develop patches and service packs? How long should they continue? You can express this either by time frame or by event or milestone.

demosthanese
demosthanese

Well you put a good point out there palmetto. How are we defineing "saving"? I am absolutely opposed to vista at this point, but we all know xp will, eventually, go the way of the doedoe. Its only a matter of time before MS decides they arent going to make it any more. So 'saving' it completely wouldn't be possible. But really, why would you want to? In the opensource community alone there are so many distros that never have to see windows again. Not to mention solaris, OSX, fedora (kinda opensource), etc. and with all that content out there, you are bound to run into something that hasnt been big boxed (and big priced) that will meet your needs; in many cases better than windows. The only problem is funding for opensource. The same programmers that work nights on SuSe, have to work days on Windows just to pay the bills... So i guess the short answer is as long as it continues to meet our needs while being relativley stable and definatly useable to the masses.

john3347
john3347

"and definatly useable to the masses." When the open source community adopts this concept, they will leave Microsoft as just another struggling software producer. The Open Source community is comprised of people who are what I describe as "technically advantaged". The masses are "technically challenged." Software, especially open source software, is written by the advantaged - for the advantaged. The technically advantaged group is sort of a parallel to the financially advantaged relative to the financially challenged. They don't know how we live and don't understand why we have so much struggles. When the open source people figure this out and start writing software that the technically challenged masses can use, there will be no discussion about Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 2009 or any other Windows except in history books. Now that's my story and I'm sticking to it!!!

btljooz
btljooz

http://www.pclinuxos.com/ as an example of just ONE Linux distro that I have on CD and used just fine from the CD-ROM in just a few minutes. ...And I've always used Windoze. It's easy...just different. I've gotten all my Bootable CDs from my Linux User Group (LUG). Besides, PCLinuxOS, I also have Kubuntu and Puppy Linux on Bootable CDs. Bootable CDs are a GREAT way to try before installing or just to use. With a bootable CD you can do a MYRIAD of things! You can use it in a computer with no hard drive at all, you can use it to retrieve data from an infested hard drive and to fix it for just two examples. Open Office is EASIER to use than M$ Office although so far in comparison it seems like M$ Office with a bit of the air let out...BUT it's STILL quite functional and easy to use. There are other sites to learn about Linux in general from, too. Simply use a search engine for what it was designed to do. ;) Here's a start: http://www.linux.org/ ...You can find a LUG near you from that one. http://www.linux.com/ ...a bit more techie than the .org site but still very informational. http://distrowatch.com ...will lead you to a mass of information to sift but is quite educational. That's not even a tiny handful of site to start learning about TODAYS world of Linux. There are a plethora of others out there just waiting to be found. ;) Edited to fix tpos...typso...TYPOS! ]:)

apotheon
apotheon

With the right idiot in charge, you can make [b]anything[/b] seem like a bad idea. Someone who just makes a unilateral decision as a network administrator to make sweeping changes and has no effin' clue how to manage an OS migration is begging to get fired. There are right ways to do things, and wrong ways. Something tells me this guy picked a "wrong way". It's not always the technology that's to blame. Sometimes it's the idiot implementor.

apotheon
apotheon

I take it you're not familiar with stuff like [url=http://pcbsd.org][b]PC-BSD[/b][/ur] if you think there's no such thing as "user friendly" open source software.

Absolutely
Absolutely

... that Vista is offered. Make it as easy to get XP SP2 as to get Vista, or no more difficult than ticking a checkbox on the order form. I think what's meant by "saving" XP is not that it's too great to replace, but that nobody wants to be pressured to "upgrade" to something that forces them to adapt to a new tool in exchange for no advantage. Vista has some improvements over XP, but they aren't relevant to everybody.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

demo touched on it but then drifted into a "Linux as replacement" discussion. What do we mean by "saving" XP, and how long should it continue to be "saved"?

pepoluan
pepoluan

I would've migrated my office to Linux... if only it was easy for 'normal people' to use. I had a friend who've migrated a whole office (ca. 200 emps) to Linux... only to face a huge outcry and outright rebellion... and he ended up with a pink slip, and his replacement remigrated everything back to Windows.

redemdone
redemdone

I am completely switched to Macs but still have a desktop PC that I use for many Windows programs that I don't want to clog my Macs with. As a result of my switch - I have to have 3 copies of XP (2 for the Macs, one for the PC) to "upgrade" to Vista - especially with the cost that MS rips us off with is too prohibitive to contemplate. My Macs meet the hardware requirements but I'd have to upgrade that also on the PC. Compare the OS upgrade costs between Mac and MS and you'll quickly see why Mac users are devotees. Keep XP - I don't want a bloated OS on any of my machines!!

verno_58
verno_58

yes it works great for me

marph321
marph321

Yes I think XP should be saved I've tried to work with vista. I would'nt classify my self as a pro but I'm fairly handy around a keyboard and mouse and I had a fairly hard time getting vista to do what the owner wanted it to do

ajole
ajole

Our Tech folks got a 30 machine Vista set-up running as a trial, and decided they hate it, it doesn't do what we need, and so we are staying with XP 'til they pry it out of our machines. I have a Vista box of my own, I like it as a user, but the curve in learning how to use and do what I did easily in XP is pretty steep considering the relatively few advantages it offers, especially since the corporate firewall and security makes a lot of the desktop stuff sort of redundant. If they would make the system navigation and control locations more XP-like, I think many would hate it less. Sort of a "Classic Menu/Control Panel" setting that made it look more like XP

normhaga
normhaga

Is saving XP really all that important. I worked with Vista for six months and decided to put my money with other OS - anything but Vista. I received a a call from MS this morning. I simply informed them that the rest of my day would be spent installing a Linux/Unix base because we are migrating away from all MS products.

ericswain
ericswain

I believe Microsoft had it right from the beginning when they decided that they were going to seperate their operating system and intoduced Win95 and WinNT both great Operating systems for their uses '95 the at home operating system and NT the business Kernal. Since then they have tried to blend the lines of business and personal use, which from a strict business standpoint don't go hand in hand. Since then Fancy and Flashy have been on the menu being that it's a one OS do all type of system. Even though they have gone through and tried to create varients of the Newer OS's they are still the same with many of the same features. Hardware manufactures have been on their toes trying to keep up with the ever bloated Operating System. Running a high end Gaming PC Vista Ultimate is great but in an office environment where the use of 4,5+ applications are running at the same time there is no room for an Operating System that absorbs as many resouces as some of todays Antivirus programs. In an XP environment it took Microsoft nearly 3 years to finally fix what everyone said would be the next ME and now everyone is raving about how great of an OS it is. You would of thought that with all the steps Vista took before releasing the fianl version to the consumer they would of had the kinks worked out. Unfortunatly for us we are the ones that suffer the consiquence of an operating system that is still no better than a beta version. Do we abandon this and migrate back, for those who have already upgraded probably not. For those looking to upgrade I would wait until atleast SP1 due out before the end of this quarter. Hopefully Microsoft will be able to learn that just because everyone wanted a new OS yesterday doesn't mean you abandon the release time line to appease the consumer. Obviously you can't forsee every issue but at least you can build a stronger OS from the beginning and gain the trust from the consumer. In regards to saving XP, until Microsoft can assure the consumer that Vista is a stronger, more reliable OS that can be debloated we should stick with what is working for us and move foward when this new OS is truely ready for the market.

Andy Moon
Andy Moon

I just don't see our business upgrading to Vista through anything other than attrition. We refresh a third of our PCs each year and the latest batch we shipped with the user's choice of Vista or XP. That means that we are at least three years from upgrading completely as I don't see us adding RAM to all those machines. I just don't see anything about Vista that is so compelling that would drive us to upgrade any faster since XP has been such a stable, dependable operating system. Do you think we should 'save' XP?

colli2
colli2

XP is without a doubt the best operating system ever produced by Microsoft! Forcing the PC manufactures to sell only PC's that are preloaded with Vista does not change that fact. The release of Vista too early i.e.: before the OEM's could produce all of the necessary drivers, proves two things. Billy Gates is greedier than we thought and Billy Gates is dumber and more arrogant than we thought. Who but Billy would dare repeat the ME fiasco? Who but Billy would dare to show so little care for the customer? To set arbitrary deadlines for the release of an operating system without regard for time left for the OEM's to develop and make available the drivers required to support the available peripherals is worse than stupid, it shows a complete disregard for the customer. Remember folks, there is Red Hat, Linux, Apple, and a plethora of alternatives out there with software that can do it all. Maybe it is time to throw away the security blanket, switch to one of the alternatives, and watch MS eat a little crow.

apotheon
apotheon

"[i]XP is without a doubt the best operating system ever produced by Microsoft![/i]" Architecturally, MS Windows 2000 was better than MS Windows XP. Its license terms were better, too. Win2k was basically the peak for Microsoft Windows so far, and it has been downhill ever since (with the exception of the incredibly poor example of WinME, which was a dip below Vista's quality between Win2k and WinXP). Unfortunately, Win2k is getting very long in the tooth at this point. Microsoft didn't keep it up to date as much as WinXP, and now that Vista is out it'll be neglecting WinXP as well. This means that there are already things some MS Windows users need to do that cannot be done with Win2k because it lacks the software support, and WinXP is going to be joining that obsolescence club soon as well. Being neglected in terms of software support may make an OS unusable for a particular purpose, but in the case of Win2k that doesn't change the fact that it was still the best-designed Microsoft operating system so far. I basically agree with the rest of your post, though.

HappyAndyk
HappyAndyk

XP is like an old shoe, worn-in, cozy, comfortable, which no one wants to discard ... yet ! Over a period of time, (what 6 years?), its been patched, patched and patched to make it what it is today ! Dependable !! Vista today is just like XP was 6 years ago. People are whining and moaning and saying that Vista is the worst thing that has happened ! XP, they say, is the ideal and does almost everything perfectly. And Vista, like a new shoe is biting some. Then there are others ! Waiting for the future ... for Windows 7...for 'that' perfect OS ! There is now talk of it being released in even 2009 H2 ! Don't think its possible; nor would Microsoft like to rush into 'it' ... again ! The official timeline is 2010. Wont be surprised if it goes upto even 2011. None of us can be really sure, now.

btljooz
btljooz

[u]If[/u] I have to learn a whole new OS, [u]anyway[/u], it will be Linux. I already have bootable CDs of Kubuntu and PCLinuxOS...[b][u]BOTH[/u][/b] of which work just fine on my existing hardware and periferals (vintage 2003 and older). And as a added bonus these two OSes were completely [b][u]FREE[/u][/b]...as in FREE Beer!!! B-) I KNOW that everything I've done with XP can be done with Linux by attending my local Linux User Group to learn first hand. ( http://www.linux.org/groups/ ) It's just a matter of learning [u]how[/u]. The Forums that particular Distros of Linux provide are coming around nicely to the [i]newbie[/i] and are very educational & helpful. ;) M$ can go take quite long walk off of a pier into the Pacific as far as I'm concerned!!! :| It's been real and sometimes it's been fun, but it's never been REAL FUN! [i]HastaLa[/i][b]Vista[/b], M$!!!

Nap Jones
Nap Jones

As a computer tech and consultant it is in my interest to support OS for as long as possible. I still have clients in the dark ages of DOS and windows 3.1, image that.

GSG
GSG

I bought a new laptop a week ago, being sure to purchase one where I could still get XP. Honestly, what value would Vista give me? From what I've heard, it's an annoying, expensive, resource hog that wouldn't really give me anything other than a pretty display. I can do everything that I want to do with XP, in a stable environment, and it's compatible with all my applications. Vista's compatible with maybe half of my apps. And don't tell me to go with a Mac or a flavor of Linux, because neither of those are compatible with any of the apps that I need to use. Besides, we all know that Vista's the new ME and will shortly be replaced.

jrich
jrich

Oops - wrong location.

dmmason
dmmason

I'm not planning on switching unless forced. I hung on to windows 95 long past 98... I kept it until my programs wouldn't run. I can't stand microsoft operating system upgrades. They never seem to work until the next latestest and greatest comes out. Mace http://getprequalified.com

maxpaul
maxpaul

For what our company does and uses the operating system for, we do not see any need to upgrade and have the staff go through a new learning curve that will just cause more headaches for us

hubertk
hubertk

Vista's code base is way more secure. Just look at the number of updates and patches for Vista vs. XP over the last we months. If security isn't enough of a compelling reason, I don't know what is. I upgrade the businesses I support one by one to Vista. There is a bit of a learning curve, but given the right training, people love it.

pepoluan
pepoluan

XP is secure enough if you harden it properly, i.e. install updates AND adopt a healthier-lifestyle (for your computer), like using AV's, Firewalls, etc.

brian.mills
brian.mills

In a way I think we should save XP. It's a very stable and reliable OS. I haven't personally used Vista yet beyond toying with computers at a store, so I can't make a personal judgement on its benefits or shortcomings, but from what I've heard others say, I'm not missing much (except eye candy). In another way, I think we should just let Microsoft phase out XP, but we should all switch to OS-X or Linux. Let our dollars vote for which system we'll use. Now, I know that for a lot of people, switching away from Windows is not an option, due to software requirements, but that is why we really need to keep XP around until either Vista gets updated to where it is a viable option or Microsoft develops a decent successor to Vista. I've lost my train of thought now. Too much going on here at work for me to be posting on Techrepublic.

wesley.chin
wesley.chin

WinFS was really what I had been looking forward to. At least until it was dropped by MS. For me, it was the MS' major selling point. Now the only thing I see is maybe the Vista Start Menu as the next attraction. But of course it can be had even without Vista, even on a PC. There are other things too, but they can all be replicated by third party software. Only WinFS is the one that can't be replicated. Right now MS is slating the successor to Vista for 2009. Perhaps it might be wise to wait till then.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Sooner or later, Xp has to go extinct as it is already grown long in the tooth. Vista isn't viable on a corporate level (by knowledgeable staff anyway) until server 08 and service pack 1 for Vista are released...along with the subsequent management tools for Vista on the server/ADUC level. Apps by 3rd smaller 3rd party companies will be slow to adopt, as they always are by any software release. Xp staying around awhile longer will help out, but sooner or later the little guy has to step up or step out. I have HVAC utilites (from one of the world's leading HVAC companies)running under JAVA 1.5.0.12 that won't run on anything newer, even though everybody harps on the fact that JAVA always remains backwards compatability. Companies with smaller dev budgets will always struggle to keep with new releases, which isn't the manufacturer fault. Many SAN devices on the corporate level operate on embedded Linux kernel's that you have to update via flash. In my testing of a few SANS, Vista machines won't see them on a window's network because the SAN is running embedded Linux with older versions of Samba. Since the os is embedded (and not even advertised as being Linux based), you are dependant on said manufaturer releasing a flash update. IMO no one is to blame, be it Microsoft, Samba or Linux. Times change, everybody has to adapt, if we like it or not.

wesley.chin
wesley.chin

Without it, there is less reason to upgrade.

hcetrepus
hcetrepus

I'm in education, and there is already a buzz about having Vista up and running so kids today can learn it for "tomorrow". I am in the process right now of setting up a solitary lab of 20 PC's with Vista. I am fighting to keep it out o fanymore labs until we have no other alternative. Save XP!

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

"running so kids today can learn it for "tomorrow"." All this for an OS thats due to be replaced in 2 years (2 years in MS time = 5 years real world). If you want kids to be computer literate, you train them on several different OS's, or at least versions of OS's. Win2k, WinXp,Vista, Mac, Linux. If a kid can boot up, log into, and do word processing, web browsing and printing in these OS's, then its a worthwhile education. We do not teach kids to write only with one brand of pencil, or force them to ONLY us epncils, no ink pens... we do not force them to read books from one publisher... so why lock them intto one computer OS version? makes as much sense as a fizzy wig on a pararie dog.

john3347
john3347

I have been reading lately of school systems in particular, both in US and UK, who are taking the opposite approach from yours and instructing their schools not to adopt Vista because there is no "operational advantage" to justify the cost of upgrading.

professordnm
professordnm

Same goes for the North Carolina university and state college system. All new desktop units coming in will arrive with Vista installed; so I've been told.

carlsf
carlsf

REASONS... VISTA is a resource HOG The Interface is crap Resources too much $ to upgrade (10 systems) some are only 12 months old Navigation is way too invovled why did they need to cahnge from 2 steps to 6 steps Connecting devices NOT good Security that is my major problem it asks, asks then asks againg do I want to NOT GOOD If MS stops me getting XP I will be switching to Linux and online Office apps (ZOHO)

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

for interesting fun and games. The community college at which I work has been testing Vista in 2 labs and the IS department Instructors offices. I can't speak to major issues beyond the fact that IT hates it, but as a user and lab teacher I can say that there are still (our 2nd semester 'testing') lots of odd little minor issues that drive students nuts.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

That's a laugh. You don't say what grade level you support, but I'll bet by the time your kids advance to the next educational level Vista will have been replaced by something else. Chasing operating systems is a waste of time. Applications are what they should be learning.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

was we need to teach broad concepts that apply accross the board. Not the specifics of how saving a files works, or the exact keys to save a file in MS Word, but the concept thata file can be saved. Universal to all word processing, spread sheets, presentations...

mrogers
mrogers

I do agree with the both of you, BUT... Being silicon jockeys, I'm sure we can all think back and remember talking to someone about something and they simply "do not care." I work in a firm that has archaeologists, biologists, and CAD techs with masters and doctorate degrees. Do any of them have any reason to know what saving a file does, or better yet IS? NOPE... Even though I think they should, they couldn't care any less. They just want it to happen. That's even been said to me word-for-word. Of course, when something happens like a "delay" while browsing the production file server, boy do we hear it! When we tell them the server load on the discs is high so it takes time for t to get to their "request" they don't care to hear it. When we tell them there's nothing we can do about it, then they get snippy. Then I explain to them that if they want it better, they need to make noise for the budget season and ensure we get what they WANT (no need). Do they want to hear that? HELL NO. *SIGH* With crap like Vista, this issue is only gonna get worse.

mjwx
mjwx

Sorry Palmetto but I disagree. They should be learning procedures, theory and practices. Memorising how to save in word is not useful. Knowing what "saving" is will be far more useful. Memorising is not learning. We need to teach people what a function does not just how to perform that function.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Except for eight W2K systems, everything I have is already running XP. We rarely upgrade the OS on a system, so the hardware upgrades to run Vista aren't an issue for our existing systems. We'll continue to purchase new systems with XP as long as we can. After that, we'll probably purchase new systems with Vista and install XP instead if we can get the drivers. Once we can no longer get XP drivers for new hardware, we'll start phasing in new systems with Vista pre-installed and h/w shouldn't be an issue. With any luck, the next version may be available and we can leapfrog to it instead. I don't see any reason to try to save XP; I'm just not in any hurry to roll Vista out. We don't have any applications that require it, and that's the only worthwhile reason to replace an OS.

donmar
donmar

We definately need to save XP. I recently bought a Lenovo for my niece a few month ago, it came preinstalled with Vista basic. i had to uninstall vista and installed XP. the machine was extremely slow booting up with Vista. it just requires too much to function. i say XP needs to stay until vista is trimmed down. it's nothing but some flashy interface anyway...

NaughtyMonkey
NaughtyMonkey

if manufacturers didn't put it on systems that were not at the recommended hardware level. My dad recently bought a Dell laptop which came with Vista Business, 512 MB RAM, and a 1.8 GHz Celeron. It took 5 minutes to boot and when it finally did it wasn't worth more than a paper weight. He sent it back and got a dual core model with 2 GB of RAM and it works fine. They should have never sold the first one though. I did, cut off the sidebar, aero, etc... and made it barely usable, but why put an OS on a machine that can run in it's defaults.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

selling 750 Mhz processors and 256 MB of ram. Sure it would run, it would install programs, but it was dirt slow.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

Perhaps it would have more impact if we move to Linux. Although, Microsoft might borrow a page from the RIAA handbook and declare us all criminals.

mrogers
mrogers

Well, think about the future... Do you think MS will go so far as to cut out the XP activation servers? This concerns me. If they force all XP license sales to pre-June or whenever, what does that say for activating reinstalls in another two, three, or even five years from now? I realize we will most likely be running something else, but look at some companies like us.. We still have dependable solid machines running W2K... What, almost 8 or 9 years since its release!

john3347
john3347

Windows 2000 has been the best , smoothest, most reliable of all - including XP. 2000 indeed needed some updating beyond SP4 but that is the OS that we need to get behind and promote, not the, still frustrating, XP.

jlexster
jlexster

I say, hand down, there is no reason to upgrade to Vista at this time. Perhaps in the future when all of the compatibility and stability issues are fixed. My company still uses XP and doesn't even consider using Vista at this time. It's a memory hog and, you're right, there doesn't seem to be much difference besides some flashy new graphics.

Editor's Picks