Windows

Windows XP lives on! Sort of

Microsoft's popular XP operating system has gotten another reprieve. While sales of XP Pro will end on June 30, 2008, XP Home will continue to be available to manufacturers of "Ultra low-cost" PCs or ULCPC. XP Home will be available for that platform until at least June 2010 or one year after the launch of the next Windows platform

Microsoft's popular XP operating system has seen so many death sentences that it may well be referred to as "zombie-ware". Destined to reach "end of life" on June 30, 2008, the software giant is having a (limited) change of heart.

Microsoft has announced that it will continue to make XP Home available for a category of computers referred to as "ultra low cost" (ULCPC), a designation that refers to the Asus Eee and the Intel Classmate PCs. These platforms are capable of running XP or Linux but aren't robust enough to take advantage of Vista features. XP Home will be available to manufacturers of ULCPCs through June 2010 or one year after the launch of Windows 7, which ever comes later.

So what is driving the reprieve? From the Seattle Times:

Bob O'Donnell, who tracks PC hardware trends for analyst firm IDC, said nearly all of the 430,000 units sold in 2007 were loaded with the open-source Linux operating system.

That's troubling to Microsoft, which expects many ULPCs to be sold in emerging markets. Those markets represent the best opportunities for growth as mature markets in the U.S. and Western Europe max out.

Microsoft previously said an even more stripped-down version of XP, called Starter Edition, will be available in emerging markets until June 30, 2010. But the ULPCs with XP Home can be sold anywhere in the world.

"These are machines that represent net PC growth overall," said Michael Dix, general manager of Windows Client product management. "Primarily, in emerging markets, a lot of first-time PC buyers find these attractive because it's an inexpensive way to get a fully functioning PC."

But it isn't just emerging markets that want XP. In a recent survey by InfoWorld, there was a strong indication that people didn't see a need to upgrade their home computers to Vista and that business still faced multiple challenges in porting their business critical applications to Vista. In short, the XP market is still alive and vibrant.

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

"It's unfortunate that they've let their blindness about Vista lead them to ignore what their customers are telling them," said Galen Gruman, an executive editor at InfoWorld in San Francisco. The online technology news and review publication has launched a "Save Windows XP" initiative, including an online petition that garnered more than 106,000 signatures at last count.

Gruman said the unusual campaign arose from discussions with corporate technology officers and others. "Everything we were hearing said it's wrong to stop XP on June 30. ... There was something real there, and we just decided that someone had to say something about it."

According to a recent report released by Forrester, "Adoption of Vista among Windows users increased by a little more than five percentage points during 2007 to end at 6.3 percent. But, much to Microsoft's dismay, even this conservative growth cannot be attributed to upgrades from XP, which remained fixed at 90 percent throughout 2007.

The final irony is this. Assuming that only cheap, basic laptops will be available with XP starting July 1, XP fans will be in a very odd position. Purchase the operating system they think is superior by paying significantly less for the hardware.

The question remains if XP will get yet another reprieve in the market. Some say yes, others, no. According to Microsoft's Michael Dix, "We think it is the right time for the mass Markey to make the switch over to Vista." It would seem, Mr. Dix, that perhaps the mass market may not share that thinking.

Share your thoughts. Would you buy an ULCPC just to have XP? Do you think that Microsoft will extend XP's life again? Or is it time to make a move away from Windows software altogether?

More Information:

Microsoft gives Windows XP a limited reprieve (Information Week)

Microsoft extends XP Home 2 years-for budget laptops only (Ars Technica)

77 comments
tech
tech

On lower-end or older hardware, Windows 2000 is still faster than either XP or Vista with many applications. Compare the total time to batch-process 200 RAW images in Photoshop and it's clear that each iteration of MS's resource-hogging OS gets worse. Given this situation, why would most people want to invest in faster hardware to run an OS that's slower? Maybe after W2K dies, I'll be switching to a Linux distro.

cjschgo
cjschgo

Most people can't afford a PC that's setup to run Vista properly. XP is Win98se thats fixed. It's much more stable ,less demanding on resources than Vista, so more can make do with less machine. Besides Microsoft is traditionally overpriced offering what amounts to a Beta version for the public to finish debugging in the real world. I'll stay with XP for as long as I possibly can. It is good and works well either home or pro version. Thank you.

sborsher
sborsher

that Vista shows you that even your new PC isn't powerful enough to run it properly.

h.helman
h.helman

I don't know anything about the "Vista" operating system except from what I read in the tech articles. I am very satisfied with XP and cannot believe that it will not be available in the near future. I have no desire to switch to Vista and will seek alternative choices for operating systems if forced to use Vista

affidavit
affidavit

I still can not believe Ms wants to kill my business as almost all my customers request XP. In the last 9 months I have only sold 3 machines with Vista no one wants it . I get lots of calls to remove Vista and install XP on new machines purchased from HP and other manufacturers but not the reverse .

wlportwashington
wlportwashington

Bill gates should wake up and smell the Roses. XP has been the best O/S that Micorsoft has yet to produce. OK, it is not perfect, we can all agree on that. But as far as Microsoft O/S's are concerned, it is pretty danm good. Vista on the other hand rates next to ME. And that was a horror show. Vista is buggy; resource hungry; everytime you add hardware like printers, it crashes; it does not play nice with legacy equipment (how much do we need to spend just to get the thing to work?). On the positive side of Vista, it is full of eye-candy. Yep eye-candy, but no usefullness. Microsoft should just trash Vista and keep XP going until they can get an O/S that works.

Cynthia R.
Cynthia R.

Here they go again! I had Vista on a new computer and I total erased it from my system. I run XP Pro and will stay with it. Vista has too many problems.

paulnmit
paulnmit

XP needs to live! I bought a new crippled compaq presario with vista home and 1/2 Gb memory. Stupid of HP to even sell it, poor ad for their computer, sales and Vista. (of course, stupid of me to buy it!) Found not enough drivers to switch back to XP, must therefore buy 2Gb memory myself. MS just wants to churn OS's, just like car manufacturers. pault@ssl.berkeley.edu

tdtbilly
tdtbilly

This is another case of a very usable machine requiring out-of-the-box upgrades just to make Vista run with any oomph. I'm sure this same machine in it's current configuration (less Vista), would run quite well with XP, performing all required tasks without the eye candy. Sorry you had to spend more of your own money just to support Microsoft's vision. I'm sure you'll get a nice Thank You card or something from them. Wonder if Microsoft has alerted all the landfills, so they can gear up for the mass dumping of viable equipment, when Redmond says it's Vista or nothing?

jpdecesare
jpdecesare

Now that SP1 for Vista is out, this is the Vista I've been waiting for. For the life of me I can't figure out why everybody gripes about Vista. You might as well have stayed on Windows 3.1 if you don't like change. Vista is stable as a rock; drivers live ibn a user space, not in the system kernel, so when they glitch, Vista RESTARTS them. What does XP do? Hang like a deer in the headlights. I'm still stuck with XP at work and I'm growing REALLY tired of its klunky ways. BTW, the the Vista SP1 is so important is because Microsoft added over 30,000 drivers to make up for the fact that manufacturers haven't done their job. If you don't have a Vista driver for a piece of hardware you own, that's not Microsoft's fault, that's your hardware vendor. And if it isn't Vista compliant, maybe it's time to upgrade. No, I don't work for Microsoft; but I also don't have my head in last century either.

tdtbilly
tdtbilly

Some of the problems smaller businesses have with moving to Vista, is the incompatibility with almost all equipment currently owned. We should not have to purchase power-house equipment needed just to make Vista turn, so end users can access the Internet and perform low end daily tasks. Current economics as they are, we can not justify these kind of expenses, so these same users can see pretty graphics, and still do the same low end tasks. XP is more than capable of handing all their tasks and more. If Microsoft wants people to move to a new platform, give companies like us a REAL reason, don't just cut support on us, just because they want to fatten their wallet. Moves like this are causing us to look at alternative programs to use on perfectly good equipment. XP Pro is Vista's biggest competition. Why? Vista is giving very little in return for the big money required to upgrade. Dropping Pro is Microsoft's idea of forcing corporate Domain users to Vista. In my mind, it is just another reason to look elsewhere. If their plan is to crack the whip and pull product support on a regular basis without having a BETTER replacement, then people should begin looking at alternative products and let Microsoft ponder where they lost the market.

art
art

We are switching our desktops to a lightweight Linux running a remote desktop client. Critical windows apps will be hosted on a Windows terminal server. This way, we not only avoid Vista headaches and cost, but we can centrally administer the Windows applications.

sborsher
sborsher

What's really important is when they will stop supporting XP. It's easy enough to get installation copies. It's not so easy to get security upgrades if ??$oft doesn't supply them.

rwbyshe
rwbyshe

Under any circumstances the PC's that I support all have XP installed and we've made the decision to keep XP until such a time that Microsoft designs and releases an OS that is truly viable and meaningful as a replacement. With 2014 as the current "drop dead" date for support there's simply no hurry to jump on any new OS from MS until it is proven to be better than XP.

glgruver
glgruver

by 2014 either M$ will have their act together and have a decent product or a *ix version will be the current de-facto standard.

lonzar
lonzar

Users are happy with XP. Vista has compatibility issues with some old progs. The want to downgrade Vista by users "forced" to buy it with a new machine and the search for machines that offer XP driver support is increasing. In the past forcing the market has paid off, but a market revolt of this sort was yet to be seen.

glgruver
glgruver

M$ does not seem to recognize is the fact that there were no viable alternate OSs available when XP came out. I upgraded a W-98 machine to XP when it first came out and was frustrated to no end with it until after the first SPs came out. Linux at that time was still too much of a "geeks only" product for most users. Since then, Linux has matured into a much more user friendly OS. My last computer came with XP Home Edition on it and I have been quite happy with it, but if I am forced to use Vista in my next laptop, I would seriously consider a different OS. On another note, because one of my children accidentally threw away some papers that had the Activation Code for my Office software while doing some housecleaning chores, I resorted to Open Office as an alternative and have not missed the M$ product at all. In fact, I have been using Open Office on all of my home computers for several years now. So there is a case of M$ cutting off their corporate nose to spite their face. GLGruver

justineoguta
justineoguta

i think xp should be still be on if u compare the cost of upgrading to vista u also have to upgrade th hardware hope microsoft should come up with an operating system that when u are upgradeng you do not need to incur high cost of hardware upgrading justin

Mr_Fen
Mr_Fen

I have recently rebuilt a number of systems and that included a 'new' laptop that had Vista on it, apart from 'looking pretty' almost everything application my client used had issues to the point of reverting back to XP Pro. The main vibe of the IT community is that an O/S needs to provide functionality, be fully supported and meet the needs of the end user. Vista is not yet ready to that point of user acceptance. XP Pro is much better than its predecessors and as mentioned earlier Vista may just be the stepping stone to Windows 7. M$ should continue to push Vista onto the market as demand will eventually grow once applications/drivers are working on it. Removing XP from support is foolish and I believe it will be in a 'Zombie state' for a very long time.

itsmuah
itsmuah

Hey all. Just my two cents worth. Lets face facts. XP just works. Its better than 98 and way, way better than Vista. Vista had already been out for some months now and its still plagued with issues and worse no solution in sight. Microsoft should have done their testing or whatever thoroughly before releasing it. XP works and thats the bottom line. If Vista is all about niceness then I say down with it. The period of making things look good although not over is I think way past. We no longer spend hours making the desktop look beautiful. We want something that works...period.

relwolf
relwolf

I agree with JohnM, we have a 6000 node network of Windows 2003/Windows XP. We have been buying systems with Vista licenses with downgrade rights to XP and installing XP since just before Vista's release. I can't see a reason yet to move. It doubles the OS footprint, we have several pieces of hardware/software that aren't compatible with Vista, and there isn't a killer app for Vista. We continue looking at Ubuntu, Open Office, Firefox, and a few dozen other applications hoping that our Linux skills will catch up in time for us to be ready to flip the switch. Personally I'm a .NET developer as well as the workstation administrator (software deployment, group policies, image maintenance - HII, etc) so the move to Linux is going to be a major change for me. I'm trying to keep up with the latest framework developments and of course Silverlight so I haven't been extremely active on converting. It looks like Microsoft is going to make me have to learn to develop in Java/PHP/Shell scripts, maybe even breakout to C (haven't done that since college). Vista isn't what we need.

roywig
roywig

It seems to me as an elderly novice that it takes so long for the problems to be ironed out in an OS that now that wind.XP is beginning to be reliable. Now is not the time to bin it! I kniw several people who have recently bought WXP -because the bugs are few and far between-whereas Vista is new and not nearly so well developed. MS are known to use the public to sort out their problems.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

We've overwhelmingly rejected Vista as acceptable for the enterprise. Microsoft appears determined to say "you WILL buy Vista the next time you purchase a computer". Who is going to blink?

Tig2
Tig2

I bought a Mac. You are absolutely correct in your analysis. That IS the question. I can see any number of ways that people will answer it. I bought a Mac. Others will Linux, others still will blink. If we have learned anything here, I hope that we have learned to value our customers. Provide the services and products that they NEED instead of what we want them to have.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...because if moving to the next level is going to be such a pain and they force the issue, most of their arguments against the Linux cost/benefits will quickly dissapear.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

CentOS. Its a clone of RedHat Enterprise. Good stuff. Not always the latest and greatest, but stable and works well =)

brad
brad

I admin a small Win2k3 server network -- 10 clients, 1 of which is (unfortunately) a Vista laptop -- for a small non-profit. We're currently planning to shift to all Linux rather than move over to Vista. Supporting that one Vista laptop keeps us "entertained" with more issues than the other clients put together. Besides, we'll realize a tremendous cost savings when we no longer have to send "tribute" to Redmond.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...when the world moved from Novell-based networks to Windows.

Jon
Jon

I know personally I would love to use a whole Linux network, it would be a great learning experience. I mean I administrate a 2003 server environment everyday, switching to a completely different OS for everyone else about 400 users, isn't going to be simply put. Besides the fact that users will not be able to use it at first glance, most software we use will not convert over easily enough for me to render it possible. The benefits would not overcome the problems.

jdclyde
jdclyde

And there simply is NOT a cost to benefits ratio to make a solid business decision to move to Vista. Maybe people are finally seeing through the marketing BS about a pc being obsolete by the time you bring it home. The only thing that makes it obsolete is when it won't efficiently do the tasks you require of it. Until it doesn't, or there is an added benefit from the latest/greatest, you are buying out of ego or stupidity.

csommatryx1
csommatryx1

it doesn't make sense for MS to abort XP like that. Given the grip XP holds and has held to date - leave well enough alone. Vista was a dire failure since the only viable "upgrades" it's given to the average person is its "eye-candy" look, so Microsoft let a sleeping dog lay at rest. Leave XP where it is, don't worry about always pleasing your shareholders, please the users, end users and administrators of XP. I know I'll be not switching from XP until hardware somehow no longer supports it. So it'll be a long time. I'm not into eye candy, I'm into functionality and that's what XP has given the world. Function over fashion. Leave the bling where it belongs - the dreamers.

Tig2
Tig2

Windows XP has had the axe dropped on it so many times that it is beginning to resemble "zombie-ware". People are not adopting Vista at the rate that Microsoft would have liked to see and ultra low-cost PCs (ULCPC) can run both XP Home and Linux. This move by Microsoft could be seen as trying to insure that the ULCPC market isn't lost to Linux. But it opens a puzzling new question. Would you purchase an ULCPC so that you can have the operating system you want? If the answer is yes, you are in a unique position indeed as making what is, in your mind, the superior purchase, will come with a significantly lower price tag. And what do you think of Microsoft's insistence that the mass market shift to Vista? Are they being heavy handed? Or simply business wise?

johnkinfw
johnkinfw

As a developer with an M.S. in C.S. and over 12 years experience with mixed platforms, I have ample background to compare versions of windows with other OSs. I have Vista on only one PC - my wife's laptop. As a result of dealing with several issues, I paid extra to get myself one with XP Pro. After my experience with my wife's laptop, I would not run Vista if it were free. I am willing to pay the price outright to backlevel to XP Pro. I will not own Vista, I will not develop for it, and I will not support it.

tech
tech

After my W2K machine outlives its usefulness, I'll be switching to a less resource-heavy OS... like Linux.

anthonyis2000
anthonyis2000

I have more and more people asking me to remove Vista and install XP. Just yesterday I told a man he would be voiding his warranty. He said "I already bought XP from DEll and I am sending the new PC back to them so that they install it." That's just a little too expensive to me but he will be happy! And that's what he wants just like so many others.

digitex1
digitex1

I manage an IT operation of about 120 workstations and will hang on to XP with white knuckles until I can't any more. Even if I have to keep loading it onto every new machine I purchase over the next couple of years or so. My operation runs smoothly and I don't need Microsoft rocking the boat!

harilal55
harilal55

It has been proven once again that BG is an excellent bussines person (money making machine), but has no pride nor shame on the products his monopoly is producing.

sborsher
sborsher

Balmer is certainly bungling the Yahoo deal. Forget about monopoly, he is acting like ?$oft is the only company on Earth. Those former lounge lizards think they have actually become uber-businessmen. I guess they haven't looked in the mirror lately.

mickydee55
mickydee55

i feel no need to change my OS to Vista and have no use for it. XP has served me well but if I must switch to an alternative OS then so be it.

pccgold
pccgold

1. accounting software 850.00 X5 to upgrade 2. Point of Sales software upgrade 2400.00 3. Invest in more robust video card X5 workstations 1000.00 4. 5 copies of Vista X5 (cost dependent on upgrade selected) 5. More calls to software Vendors blamming Microsoft More calls to Microsoft blamming software vendors. 6. Unstable on older workstations (option buy new ones) Well I don't know what bussiness everybody else is in but the cost benefit ratio is not there. XP Pro works just fine for now.

MarkCamp
MarkCamp

I bought "system builder" copies for my three machines and upgraded my software to the most recent XP versions so I could sit tight and not use Vista. If I have to move, I'm going to Linux.

mla_ca520
mla_ca520

In my company, we run several applications, which simply won't work with Vista. Our IT Dept has installed Vista on several machines and tested it. We have some workarounds, but it requires so much extra effort that it simply isn't worth switching to Vista. I do Tech support on the side and it is my observation that Vista is bloated and I wouldn't want it on my machine. If Microsoft insists on killing XP without fixing Vista, I will likely switch to Ubuntu for my next computer. it is a high speed, light weight operating system and it apparently is more secure than Vista.

paul_frederick
paul_frederick

I am a network professional, and i love Vista. Everybody is just scared of change, but if people acutally took a look at what Vista offered they would throw their XP pc out the Window.

Stovies
Stovies

Vista was and is completely unnecessary and is not a replacement for XP. I have been a professional user of computers probably since before Fredericks was born, and I have seen improved replacements. Vista is not one of them. Besides you are not paying for the computers as a professional I supposed you are a hired man. MS want to support XP Home for a while, but I never bought XP Home even for my home computers I always bought Professional for the Contacts etc. I think that XP should become public property since Bill gates has milked the p[ublic long enough. XP is good, yes and I want to keep it. If I cannot I will go to Linux, which has everything most businesses need, as opposed to bells and whistles of Vista. Tell the truth for once in your life, Vista is not worth it!!!

blarman
blarman

I don't care what network performance improvements it has. If it can't run my apps and my hardware, it's still USELESS! We tested out Vista by installing it on a couple of brand new laptops. Then we found out that we had to upgrade Office to 2007. Spent another $350. Then we had to upgrade the AV (waited 3 months). Then we had to upgrade Adobe Acrobat ($400). We still can't get scan drivers for any of our HP MFP's. And Internet Explorer 7 broke several of our other apps. Sorry, but Vista has caused us nothing but pain and grief and lots of additional money spent just to reach the SAME functionality level we had with XP for nearly $1000 less! No pretty interface is worth that.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Sorry but I have both systems and I really can see no overriding Business Reason to move to Vista and leave XP Pro behind. The only improvement that I've seen that have any Business relationship is the Power Saving for Batteries on NB Loaded Vista computers and even then they need to be Maxed out to perform part way well. What is the overriding reason to move to Vista now? Col

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

If you got it you will use it but currently there is no reason to move just because of a perceived something better. Currently the costs involved to switch the Base OS of the business is just way too great and the Benefits way too small to warrant the move at the moment at least. Col

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

are nice and I can see a business taking advantage of them, but that all so requires a transition to a 2008 environment.... But, thats not enough reason for most businesses to transition to Vista. And any company that NEEDED the security of a NAC system is not going to be using the MS version...

squirrelpie0
squirrelpie0

I'm a tech who supports "mature" uusers, primarily on laptops. I shudder whenever one of them shows up with a Vista unit and spend much of my training effort with them turning off "fluff" features so the units will perform at a level that meets their requirements. Personally I recently bought a new Vostro Laptop from Dell because I could still get it with XP Pro the same as my desktop. My previous Dell Laptop had W2k reinstalled because XP was even too bloated for that poor machine. The only reason I would even entertain a Vista installation is self education. In conclusion Vista is the Me of this first decade of the 21st century

jor55
jor55

Why should I abandon a perfectly good (relative statement!)Microsoft OS for an MS one that is nothing but trouble? I'll keep XP until it is no longer practical, then upgrade to a better MS OS if there is one, or go to Linux. If MS tries 'underhanded' methods to try to make me 'upgrade' to Vista, then I won't wait for a better MS OS, but will 'jump the MS ship' sooner than later.

yoderpl
yoderpl

If I'm forced to switch to VISTA, because of none support, I'll take Windows off all three CPU's that my wife, son, and I use and go to Linux. VISTA, as far as I'm concerned is a big Microsoft failure of corporate leadership to listen to the 'mass market' they always talk about. And, VISTA should have been kept in-house for more extensive testing. It should also be downward compatable with the 'mass market's' hardware and installed programs.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

What people are saying now is no different to when XP was released and look what XP eventually Grew Up Into. It started out as a Dog and eventually Evolved into something useful. The problem with Vista now is that M$ wants to push it on all so that they can claim that it's pickup is better than it should be. Currently XP has been removed from new NB's so if you are looking at one of those you need to go with Vista. Of course you could always get a high enough Version and with the Backward License install XP to remain Legit. I personally Think that is what M$ actually wants as Vista Business in OEM Form is about $240.00 AU and a License from M$ for DOS 6 something or other is about $60.00 AU. So now M$ is claiming that they are going to be selling Vista Business Licenses every time you want a License for DOS. Two guess what I'll be saying to them on that count. :D As things stand when I buy a License for DOS I don't really believe that I need it as the Original Hardware remains the same I'm just changing some of the Controller out of the Embedded Application that uses DOS. Col

brian.mills
brian.mills

I currently have no plans to purchase an ULCPC just to get a copy of Windows XP instead of getting Vista with a new system purchase. Of course I don't see much of a future for Microsoft products in my home at all. I'm perfectly happy working with a Linux/OS-X environment, and if the Linux devs can get the power management problems that keep plaguing them worked out, my next notebook will run Linux like my current one does. Otherwise my next notebook will be a Mac. Windows has its purpose, just as any other operating system, and for many uses, it doesn't matter what OS you're using. But I can't see any reason to send any more of my hard-earned money to Redmond. I can understand Microsoft wanting to phase out XP and focus on Vista, but if they're going to be keeping it alive for some groups, they'll have to continue to provide security updates for those groups. It won't cost them much more to keep that support available for the rest of the world as well.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

XP Home that is. But I might if I needed something to play in other OS's with. I don't much care for MS offerings to home users as some of what I want from Windows is stripped out of or drastically curtailed in the Home editions. With Windows it is only the Professional editions for me. That said, my overall goal now is to get away from Windows as much as possible as regards my personal use. I will continue to need it for work, but I really don't for personal anymore. MS heavy-handed tactics re: Vista? Bite me Uncle Billy. I see the insistence on keeping XP Home alive rather than XP Pro right on up there in the heavy-handed department. It is far from business wise to not give the customer what the customer wants. To all intents and appearances, the customer wants XP, and this particular customer wants XP Pro, not XP Home. JIC it's not clear - Bite me Uncle Billy!

Ajax4Hire
Ajax4Hire

I am reminded of the combination of: Windows CE, Windows ME and Windows NT to form Windows CEMENT. I know Microsoft no longer wants to support WinXP and push everyone into the 21st century with Vista. And Vista has a lot of wow-techno-flash-cute-teddybear-kumbaya-wecare feel but is it any better? I use to think WinXP is too heavy handed when it comes to setup, arrangement, preferences; always pushing my selections back to the MSway. That was until I used Vista and "its MSway.PERIOD" MSFT will peak this Dec08 as they make even more money pushing people to the more expensive VistaOS. MultiUser on a single PC is still a kluge on MS Windows. There are billions(B) of computer users on ULCPC that are angry at having to shell out even more money to the largest company in the world. The USA may continue on the MSVistaOS way but the ROW will start to realize that "All I really need is Web browser, EMail and a way to do documents/spreadsheets/presentations. I use Linux/GNU and my $200 PC is still $200.

Tig2
Tig2

If they didn't make XP available to the ULCPC market, they ran the risk of not making in-roads to that market. And for many people, there is no longer a need to invest huge amounts of money for a system that will only be asked to do the basics. The issue comes to choice. What will best meet the needs of the consumer. Unfortunately, the consumer has already answered that question. No one seems to be listening.

Tig2
Tig2

Your PDA would likely have to be the size of whatever your current monitor is and with less functionality. But it would only have to be Vista Capable. Mostly because they haven't used up the supply of 915 chip sets yet! OK- seriously... I don't have any solid information here, I was reading a "projected future" plan. It sounded to me like they were looking to use Vista capabilities (?) on their Windows Mobile platform. I would assume that this means anything running an operating system. I'll see if I can still find the article and post you a link.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

The last time I had a cell phone with a talk time of less than an hour was 1996. But at least it booted far faster than Vista.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...to run Vista? That sounds like something that would create enough heat to burn a hole in my pocket! Would my PDA have to be "Vista Ready" or "Vista Capable"?

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

The Bureaucracy has got way too big and stopped them responding in any form that is acceptable to the masses. When they had DOS or even 95 they could change things as new Technology came along. The move from 8 Bit to 16 Bit Computing was made fast maybe too fast for the times but it was made. Then with the move to 32 Bit Computing things went slower as M$ claimed this was to allow the Hardware to be freely available so that the Customers wouldn't be running into Issues with unsuitable Hardware. Now that 64 Bit CPU's and other Hardware has been around for a very long time M$ has ported 1 Major Application to it and while that works well and uses a lot of the advantages that 64 Bit Computing offers what else have they actually moved to the 64 Bit Architecture? Bugger All when everything is said and done and even what they have moved is a Half Hearted attempt. But in M$ defense they have now grown too big and Fat to respond effectively like they used to be able to do. They have produced products with more Add Ons than the actual Base Product because they Insist that we need these other bits. The end result is that M$ have got exactly what they wanted and it's costing them now in their inability to change as it is required by technology improvements. Lets face facts if it was up to M$ they would still be selling 95 rebadged to look like something else and we would still be working with Substandard Insecure Product expecting it to be no better than what it is. Col

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

I got stuck on "trying to port Vista to mobile devices" if by portable device you mean laptop, sure, if you mean UMPC no, I really can not see that working. I think MS has reached the Ma Bell point of business. listening to customers is no longer needed, since where else will they go?? But, to be honest, I think Vista was a ploy on part of MS to control the HD media playback market. Soon MS will dictate conditions to Hollywood, in much the same way iTunes turned the tables on the music industry. Maybe MS does listen, but due to bureaucracy is unable to respond in a timely manner?

Tig2
Tig2

They are trying to port Vista to mobile devices. Obviously not there today but that is the direction I am hearing. I personally think that they are missing the boat where their customer base is concerned. The people will tell them what they want. Microsoft needs to start listening.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

is that even XP is "bloated" in the UMPC market. XP really will have difficulty competing performance wise on hardware traditionally ruled by Puppy Linux other light weights. to be competitive, they need something between Windows XP and CE.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

When I was a kid there was a store nearby that carried a number of products including one particular item that nobody else carried. As kids we?d travel a few extra blocks just to get it, along with a bag-full of other items. Things went on like that for a few years until one day when I looked for the item and couldn?t find it. Upon asking I was informed that they couldn?t keep it in stock and it attracted kids, so they would no longer carry it. Things being what they were the kids started frequenting another store as did their parents. Needless to say, business dried-up and the store shut its doors around eight months later. The moral of the story is; if you don?t cater to your customers they won?t be your customers for long.

sborsher
sborsher

is that Ashmont Hardware closed in my area after HQ, the Home Depot, then Lowes came to town. There is still one left a couple towns away, and I go there sometimes to find some unique household items. An old time lumber yard/Ace Hardware also just "upgraded" in my town. I'm worried that the will fade away as well. and there's nothing I hate more than buying lumber at HD or Lowes.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

It was the only place within 200 miles that I knew of where you could get many hard-to-find or non-seasonal items (lawn chair webbing in January, for example). He would also let almost anybody run a tab. One day he decided to modernize the place... scanning cash registers, just-in-time inventory, etc. He quit carrying the older items and quit running tabs, and, as in your story, he was out of business within 6 months. Sometimes newer doesn't mean better.

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

What I don't understand is why doesn't MS just keep XP and Vista around until their next major screwup (Windows 7)? If you want XP, you buy XP. If you want Vista, you buy Vista. Both OS's are made by MS, which means that no matter which one you buy, MS makes money! I think they are trying entirely too hard to push Vista into the market...they just need to realize that Vista is garbage and keep offering XP until Windows 7 comes out. XP may not be the latest, greatest, and most up-to-datest OS out there, but it WORKS...something Vista can't quite manage yet.

richstgmgr
richstgmgr

The backlash against forcing MS Vista on PC users could be bigger than MS anticipates. We're small potatoes, but my (domestic) partner and I are considering other options than "upgrading" - we might move to MAC (heavens forfend!) or a LINUX-based system. And I'm sure we're far from alone in resisting the pressure to adopt Vista. Advice to MS: newer is not always better, in terms of functionality or appropriateness.

NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

...they are also trying to push people to: Office 2K7, Server 2K8, MOSS 2K7, etc, etc,etc From the MSFT perspective, the longer XP is around, the less likely they'll have mass movement towards their other product suites. XP is an anchor keeping organizations in a Win2K/2K3 server, Office 2K3, SQL 2K/2K5 environment; which does not enhance the MSFT revenue stream. If MSFT wanted to be repair the damage, they'd develop 'on-demand virtualizations'. You install an application that only works on XP onto Windows 7....but during the install process, the OS asks you whether or not you want to run the app in an XP, Vista or Win7 Shell. When the app is run, it creates a virtualized environment for that single app...much like the Altiris VSS. This way, you have a fairly painless way to run apps that ordinarily would lock customers in to older operating systems. You'd clear one of the major two hurdles ($$$ being the other) keeping firms from adopting new OS. You'd also throw a monkey wrench into the plans of several competitors who are using the pitfalls of Vista as a major driver towards selling their virtualization products. This wouldn't be a silver bullet by any stretch, but it would me a move towards a middle-ground that is currently being ignored my Redmond, in my opinion.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

I don't ever remember that, and I've been around awhile.

miserstat
miserstat

I really don?t get it! Why wouldn?t Microsoft support XP forever for a small fee each year? What?s wrong with the product? Will it explode in 2010 or something? Will all the errors and patches overwhelm its basic code and come to a screeching halt? Or will, more realistically, the system become so porous to hackers as to be insecure? I still remember when ?DOS? and ?Windows? were ?FREE? from Microsoft we all loved them then. With too much money, they lost their way and a lot of us loyal customers too!

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

There's no question that virtualization solves much of the legacy application problem. But still, it all has to be cost justified, and considering the cost of replacing so much perfectly functioning hardware and software for what are still speculative benefits is a very hard sell, especially in the current economic environment.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

no longer providing any serious level of code support for one or the other of them... Even for MS, I think its asking too much for them to support several desktop OS's at the same time. Response to TT: I think MS is being MS, and that means they are only partly paying attention to their customer base. Vista was a move in a long term plan. I have no idea what that plan is exactly (other then world domination), but I do not see MS shifting their 20 year just because Vista flopped. It is important to note, that while ME was junk, it beta tested several features for XP. I see Vista is a market stop gap and beta test for Windows 7, just like ME was for XP. The difference here is that Vista is much better then ME, and can really stand on its own as an OS (no flaming please). But it is not superior enough over XP to be a cost-wise upgrade for many (one exception being in a new Server 2008 environment).