Windows

Ballmer hints that Microsoft could keep selling Windows XP

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer conceded that Microsoft could continue selling its Windows XP operating system past the current end-of-life date -- June 30 -- if there was sufficient market demand for it.

On Thursday, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer (right) conceded that Microsoft could continue selling its Windows XP operating system past the current end-of-life date -- June 30 -- if there was sufficient market demand for it.

"XP will hit an end-of-life. We have announced one. If customer feedback varies, we can always wake up smarter, but right now we have a plan for end-of-life for new XP shipments," said Ballmer, who was speaking at a press conference to announce a new "innovation centre" in the city of Mons in Belgium.

Ballmer admitted, "In the business environment, we still have customers who are buying PCs with XP." But he chalked that up to the fact that IT departments are slow adopters of new operating systems because they prefer to standardize.

However, according to data from Forrester Research, the latest enterprise adoption numbers for Windows Vista are ugly. As reported by Computerworld:

Forrester said that surveys of more than 50,000 corporate computer users showed that 89.5% of all Windows users were running XP at the beginning of 2007, and 89.8% were using it at year's end. Vista's share, meanwhile, reached 6.3% by the end of 2007, a gain that was almost exactly mirrored by a drop in Windows 2000 use.

Meanwhile, a new report from InformationWeek on Thursday indicated that Dell will use a loophole in its Windows licensing agreement to continue selling Windows XP on business machines through 2010:

Buyers who want a Dell system with XP pre-installed after June 30 will technically be purchasing a system with a license for Vista. However, Dell will also include a preinstalled copy of XP on systems marketed as Windows Vista "Bonus" edition...

[Dell's] OS license agreement allows users to downgrade a purchased operating system to the previous version at no additional charge. Dell is simply making it easier for its customers to exercise that option by pre-installing XP long after its official expiration.

On Monday, I predicted that Microsoft will leapfrog Vista, release Windows 7 early, and change its OS business. If Microsoft extends the lifcycle of Windows XP, it will only make that scenario more likely.

Bottom line for IT leaders

For enterprise IT departments, it doesn't really matter how long Microsoft officially sells Windows XP because if they have an existing site license for Windows then they can continue to install Windows XP for many years to come. Most big IT departments buy their PCs without operating systems pre-installed, or wipe them them out and replace them with the company's OS image.

However, for small businesses and independent contractors, this is a big deal because if they want to continue to avoid Vista, they will need help from OEMs like Dell in order to keep getting Windows XP on new machines past June 30. If you would like to see Microsoft continue to sell Windows XP, now is the time to speak up about it. You can e-mail Steve Ballmer at steveb@microsoft.com.

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

62 comments
angelsluv
angelsluv

I lost alot of favorite software titles when XP wouldn't let it run '95.. I have alot of software with XP and I can't go through that again with 7. This is crazy!!!

dobbinsm
dobbinsm

Until Microsoft comes up with something better other than Windows Vista which ,in my opinion, is almost like Windows ME, then I prefer to keep using Windows XP. We use it on all of our in-house PCs as a standard operating system. I will also continue to purchase it for my clients that want computers from me as long as possible. I hope the availability of Windows XP servives past the June 30th date. Most people are used to XP and I don't have time to help them try to learn a new operating system as troublesome as Vista.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I can't install Windows. It holds 90% of the market and is hailed as the best thing since sliced bread by those who love it; I can't get it too install. I grew up with Microsoft OS products and have setup systems with boot configs that would make you dissy; It's not happening. Let explain; the budget for a system upgrade finally came through at home. It was followed quickly by a very enjoyable trip to the computer shop with my grocery list (the store staff love grocery lists, I could tell). The small upgrade from an AthlonXP 2100 single core; asus striker2, Q6600, 4 gig 1066, nVidia 8800, hauppauge pvr 500. It's too much hardware for Windows; ironicaly, all hardware marketed for Windows systems. Luckily, my prefered OS installed without issue so I have a usable system. After that initial install, it came time to build the gaming partition so out comes my winXP installs. The install process went clean but I consistantly get a blue screen of love during boot. Ok, this is far less drama than it sounds. The SATA driver was included during the install process; it's the first boot I can't get past now. I am using a pre sp1 install disk so there is a good chance it's the SATA or another hardware driver issue. I'll try an sp2 winXP install disk unless I can get hands on an sp3 disk soon. I just wanted to rant for a moment about the 90% of the market, greatest OS ever in the history of computers (in the last thirty years) being completely unable to install and boot on "Made for Windows" hardware. Sadly, DX10 is in my near future so that's going to mean a Vista install once I can't refrain from Crysis any longer. I'd love to see a DX10 build for WinXP but that's not going to sell Vista licenses now is it. For now, WinXP will remain my Windows environment for all non-DX10 win32/64 functions. Now I'll step down off my barstool, go check for a winXPsp2 install disk, confirm all flashable firmware is updated and verify that I've the latest drivers to slip into the install process. (I haven't met a windows I couldn't install and this won't be an exception.) :)

Stovies
Stovies

If Microsoft could start to be honest with themselves and with customers they would say "with Vista, we have lost the plot." Instead of simplifying things we have made them unworkable and unacceptable as far a LOYAL CUSTOMERS are concern. You know you best friends will alway tell you the truth and it's a silly person who ignores the advice of a real friend. Whatever MS does in the future XP professional and home should remain as a product for home users and small businesses. maintaining that is not going to be as expensive as producing 'something new - that isn't' as they have done with Vista.

itpro_z
itpro_z

I just got in a HP notebook that I ordered with Vista, which came in with the Vista media and license, but with XP installed on the hard drive. I wiped XP and installed Vista Business, as that is what we are using for most new installs. The only issues we have had with Vista is a handful of users who connect to a State system that is stuck on IE6 and doesn't plan to update for at least another year. Regarding the comments about only Win2K users moving to Vista, that fits our scenario. The systems reaching end of life now are almost all running Win2K, so those are the ones getting replaced. Our XP machines haven't reached end of life yet, so unless we have a machine die there is no reason to replace those systems yet. Interesting how some make a big deal out of this.

donaldcoe
donaldcoe

Operating System upgrades were in the beginning (ie, DOS era) always hardware driver driven, but at the advent of Win95-Win98-Win2000 application speeds (8bit-16bit-32bit) plus hardware performance boosts accelerated for an OS that could keep up. Now the x64bit era with it's blindingly fast RAM, CPU's, HDD's, CDROM's, plus the need to stop software pirateteers in their tracks with a more locked downed OS XP to Vista. Now that software pirates are on notice with WGA and the disabling features of Vista, there is NO push to commit to the FULL and complete jump over Niagra with Vista. My suggestion to Ballmer is to reduce the price on Vista by $75. across it's entire line and let it stay there for 1 year, and leave XP prices at the same present day prices. Your customers will see the bargain at an investment

$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$

The waterfall has an 'a' where the medication does not, grr. I don't see what point you're making about "the x64bit era with it's blindingly fast RAM, CPU's, HDD's, CDROM's, plus the need to stop software pirateteers in their tracks with a more locked downed OS XP to Vista." All device performance increases are provided to you courtesy of hardware engineers, separate from Microsoft, which has not been ahead of, nor even near the front of the curve re: 64-bit operating systems. From what I read on the Intartubes, driver support is still crappy for [b]XP[/b]64.

pepoluan
pepoluan

You are assuming that everyone have the blindingly fast system you're describing.   We have just such blindingly fast system -- UNDER XP. The exact same system can't cope with Vista's hideous resource requirements. Why should I buy super-duper-hyper-accelerated graphic cards just to run an OS?   Nope. I'd rather EOLC-ed my systems, do a massive upgrade, and go Straight-to-Seven.   Here's to hoping that Windows Seven will deliver on its promise to be at least as light & fast as Windows XP :)  

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

DING!-DING!-DING! Winner by a knockout! print this thread, mass produce it and throw a ticker-tape parade with the confetti.

tigertom
tigertom

Big IT departments and PC manufacturers: - As the article makes clear, big IT departments don't care, won't demand XP, because they just pay for the licence and install what they like. - And, unless the market gives a very clear message to the PC manufacturers, they will push Vista, because it pushes the customers to buy more expensive PCs. So the majority folks who have been posting here, and those like them who want to stick with XP, better be very clear when buying a PC that they will not buy one with Vista. If you're looking for a change for the sake of change, or some of the new functionality in Vista (though I am not aware of any) or you prefer the appearance of it, wait as long as you can for it to stabilise and for the hardware to catch up, then go for it. Me, I'm going to buy a Dell with XP for myself - my priority is to get a machine that will do what I do now, but faster.

pepoluan
pepoluan

It is unfortunate that Big IT just stay silent during this whole "I hate Vista" debacle. They really should voice their opinion on Vista.   And you make a nice point: Rather than buying a faster computer to run Vista at the same speed, I'd rather have it run XP at a faster speed :)  

tigertom
tigertom

Believe it or not, Microsoft is still selling Windows '98. In the PC department of Department store Carrefour in Melaka, Malaysia, you can find real cheap Dell laptops, with 256M of RAM, and Windows '98 installed.

$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$

"we can always wake up smarter" ... but never do.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

If I was still a Microsoft shareholder (I sold out at the peak) I'd have to be asking Steve Ballmer exactly how deaf he might be. Considering the dismal acceptance of Vista, come the end of June those of us without site licenses will have only 2 options for new PCs; Buy from Dell or switch to Mac or Linux. I think I'm buying some Dell stock today.

chaz15
chaz15

If MS have ANY sense, they will keep shipping XP until Windows 7 arrives and is well established. But do they?

TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827

XP Home simply doesn't have the required capabilities that come included in Linux for the UMPC market. There are NO limitations to what you can do with Linux, what features to include, etc. Connect to Active Directory, Disk encryption, SSH server, Remote Desktop, unlimited. Offering XP Home for UMPC is really not going to fly because of that. If XP Professional (and cut down versions are still available), then you can get the same function with Windows as you can with Linux. For the OEM, Linux would NOT be having so much success on the desktop in Asia and Eastern Europe, South and Central America pre-installed by OEMs if Vista was really any good. They would be pirating it, which I doubt they are, and the OEMs are, well, OEMing it to attract customers. Vista is simply not something I recommend, it is always Dell with XP for newbie (I dual boot it with Mandriva), but even my playing with Vista for 6+ hours before I dual booted this new machine of mine, Vista had no WoW and a LOT of churn for no good reason. If it hadn't have great help to search for topics then bring the right configure dialogue open, I would have given up after 20 minutes. Everything is just hard to find for no good reason. Expect Windows 7 to bring back simplicity and consolidation. Until then, MS's choices are 1) Give up on UMPC 2) Get reluctant attrition to Vista via new PC sales 3) See more and more enterprises try Linux/Mac or 1) Sell XP and continue to maintain enterprise 2) Prevent OEMs from exploring more with Linux because XP is entrenched, fully supported and (relatively) just works. TripleII

TechinMN
TechinMN

I like how Ballmer implies that the reason XP is still out there is because of slow-to-adopt IT shops, and conveniently overlooks the fact that Vista is NOT ready for the workplace. It's still too buggy, doesn't play well with a large amount of software and hardware (including recent MS offerings), the Mobility Center is a joke, and there's at least 40% more clicking necessary to complete any task that doesn't have a direct desktop shortcut. There's a reason the amount of XP installations INcreased rather than DEcreased. Don't believe me? Try troubleshooting a flaky network connection sometime. Or removing a program. Or adding a smart phone. Or...well, you get the idea. :o) "Let's pay more money for an OS that increases our support burden, increases the cost of hardware, is less reliable, and may or may not work with half of our infrastructure!" Hmm...that may make sense for a defense contractor, but definitely not in the real world. Don't get me wrong: Vista is a good base to start from--it just needs to be streamlined, slimmed down, kaizen-ed and simplified. It never should have reached RTM status.

fcameron
fcameron

It seems to me that IT isn't 'slow to adopt'. It seems to me that IT looks at what is new, assesses if it is necessary, makes their recommendations and waits for the money boys to push a wheelbarrow full of money into the department. If new tech allows IT to do something more cheaply, if it makes things faster, IT reports are filled with phrases such as "critical need" and "quickly decrease costs". Now, is this what happens when an IT department writes on migrating to Vista? Hell no. Vista will do some things that XP can't do or not easily, BUT, it also comes with alot of limitations. Costs don't quickly decrease, indeed, with new hardware and software purchases precipitated by the 'upgrade', the costs increase by a huge amount. Does vista shrink the IT department, making things much easier for them? Don't make us laugh. I may be a tiny fish in this IT pond, but even I can see that the cost benefit ratio for Vista points so far over to the "Do Not Want" side that you'd think the gauge was broken.

pepoluan
pepoluan

Why? Well perhaps because the machines running Win2K is waaaay past its due date; they have to replace it anyway, so they replace it with something truly cutting edge.   And most likely with Vista pre-installed.   Rather than downgrade it to XP, the IT Dept. said, "Okay, let it stay Vista. We'll see what happened."   But I bet the rest of the fishes, just like you said, has no desire whatsoever to upgrade their already-running-well systems for just the sake of some eye candy (which gets hidden anyway as soon as users maximize an application).  

pepoluan
pepoluan

Heh, you said that: Vista is a good base to start from--it just needs to be streamlined, slimmed down, kaizen-ed and simplified. It never should have reached RTM status.   Had they scrapped NT6 (a.k.a. Vista) and concentrated on building Seven, we'll have Seven already on the shelves mid-2009. And all will be well.   As it is now, I'd rather wait out for Seven.  

techrepublicsucks
techrepublicsucks

"IT departments are slow adopters of new operating systems because they prefer to standardize." What a hypocrite! Isn't Microsoft supposed to understand "standardization"? In fact, if MS wasn't so fast to ship its new OS and so slow to share it with 3rd-party developers we might not need so much post-release standardization work by IT departments. Ballmer needs to let Vista permeate the 3rd-party market another year before pulling XP. Trust me; it takes a hypocrite to know one. After all, I have my own business servicing Microsoft systems. Wait a minute...never mind...Go Ballmer! Go Vista! ROFL!

techknght
techknght

Wow, I rarely reply to posts but maybe I've finally had my fill of ppl not staying on the topic. The Question, "Will/Should Microsoft continue to sell WinXP"? Why this has anything to do with Apple or Linix is beyond me. The logical follow-up question concerning support isn't about calling MS to get your turn-of-the-century printer functioning again, it's whether MS will continue to address bug/gliches and security issues found in WinXP by releasing SP's. I agree that Vista appears to be headed down the same path as WinME which was released before it was ready and ended up simply being a precursor to WinXP (with us paying for the R&D) but I digress... To answer the question, MS created this fiasco by allowing WinXP to become entrenched by waiting more than 6 years to improve/replace WinXP. When the IT and IS departments pressured MS to confront the huge holes in WinXP, not to mention the constant bombardment by hackers (Which by the way, neither Apple or Linix would survive a single day if the focus changed)Vista was released to pacify the masses and treated with the same attitude that WinXP was, when it was released in 2001 (We'll fix it as we go via SP's)MS needs to cut it losses with Vista and focus on Win7 while continuing to acknowledge WinXP is here to stay until MS can produce a stable and reliable OS replacement. IMHO

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

" When the IT and IS departments pressured MS to confront the huge holes in WinXP, not to mention the constant bombardment by hackers (Which by the way, neither Apple or Linix would survive a single day if the focus changed) " If the focus changed, osX, the BSDs or the various distributions based on the Linux kernel would see more attempts. The difference would still be in success rates. Windows has a high amount of attacks *and* a high amount of successfull attacks *with* a slower rate too address those found vulnerabilities. By contrast, the FOSS developer community is not limited by marketing, budgets and product deadlines. Vulnerabilities are seen as "proof of concept" for a bit of coding that needs to be fixed. Patch times for those discovered flaws are often counted in hours versus days, weeks or months. A bug report will often include the source snippet with the fix; do Windows bug reports regularily include the corrected source code? I think that BSD would show the hardest resistance to a Windows level of criminal focus. It has the FOSS developers behind it along with the standards and primary goal of high security above all else. Linux based OS would probably be next in the line of resistance. It has the developers behind it but is a more varied market due to the array of very good to some very poor distributions. osX has the posix/BSD base so it has an architectural advantage over Windows but the Apple only parts of it are limited by Apple's budgets and delivery scheduals. Windows has demonstraited over and over that it would be fourth in the architectural line of resistance to malware. In short, while Windows developers may want to make a 100% rock solid OS, they are effected by business limitations that inherently prevent that goal. FOSS developers, on the other hand, work on whatever project they take interest in out of personal interest and the drive to make better programming code. It has much more to do with architecture and configuration than it has to do with market size. Obscurity (small market share) has nothing to do with defensive security; it's only of use to the attacker playing hide and evade games.

$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$

That's just a weak excuse for being weak. M$ is not a heavyweight boxing champ, it is an immoral monopoly that has thrived on promising more than it can deliver (usability "out of the box", HA!), illegal package-dealing (Netscape suit), and following the technology curve, never pushing it: Excel, Word, Windows itself. Since, with all the market share it has acquired by cheating, it still is unable to write secure software, I have concluded that incompetence is pervasive in Microsoft. How do you reach another conclusion, in the face of all the companies that successfully write software with fewer exploits in products with similar functionality to Microsoft's? [i]Why this has anything to do with Apple or Linix [sic] is beyond me.[/i] They are competitors, whose chances of destroying Microsoft increase as it fails to deliver on its various promises. Even Steve Ballmer could have told you that, although he would have taken several self-contradictory paragraphs of euphemisms to say it.

husserl
husserl

If they don't my next notebook will use Linux.

bkoelrich
bkoelrich

MS Vista is all glitz/media/game oriented - it's a flop! You can do all those things, PLUS have the utilitarian capabilities of XP for people who use their computers for SERIOUS reasons like managing their businesses, their bank accounting, investments, doing desktop publishing, etc. Considering Vista is a proven flop, and Microsoft is losing money on it as long as it's out there, and XP is still going strong (so much so that MS is releasing SP3. Let's hope it's well done, rather than creating new bugs to weed out of XP), MS had BETTER KEEP SELLING XP!! MS should provide free conversation to XP SP3 for people who have already bought PC's with Vista pre-installed on them, or bought Vista on their own. Then, MS should do a complete recall of Vista and throw it in the trash before they lose any more money on it as the debacle of an O.S. it's proven to be.

$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$

[i]MS had BETTER KEEP SELLING XP!! MS should provide free conversion to XP...[/i] Good for you for not calling it a "downgrade." That particular item of Microsoft propaganda has been annoying me for a few months, but not enough for me to pick a term to substitute. So, thank you for that. [i]... SP3 for people who have already bought PC's with Vista pre-installed on them, or bought Vista on their own. Then, MS should do a complete recall of Vista and throw it in the trash before they lose any more money on it as the debacle of an O.S. it's proven to be.[/i] I didn't watch the IT news back then like I do now, so please have mercy, or at least don't act surprised if I'm wrong, but didn't Windows Millennium also have a lot of heavily-advertised features which would never be of any use, except to video gamers? And, didn't a number of those get included in XP? Isn't it a little shady to sell a version as business-competent when its real purpose is video game testing?

CG IT
CG IT

But the biggest reason why I don't recommend Vista to customers is the lack of periperal support for older but still good printers, scanners, cameras, and software that work great on XP but won't work on Vista. Windows 7 is supposed to provide support for older periperal equipment [unlike Vista] which if true will allow joe consumer and businesses to deploy a new O/S without having to buy brand new printers, scanners, cameras and the lot. Good try by Microsoft and periperal equipment mfgs to try and get consumers and businesses to all buy new equipment but they forgot that not everyone wants the latest and greatest. Couple that with consoles pretty much killing the PC gaming market which drives the need for PCs latest and greatest, and well business and joe consumer just aren't going to shell out the $$ for a new O/S and have to buy all brand new hardware and software that will run on it.

bkoelrich
bkoelrich

The originator of this thread/discussion stated it best in his posting on 4/25/08: Vista is a debacle! It's just glitzy, and nothing more. Give me the comprehensive and stable XP forever! If Microsoft doesn't want to keep losing money due to Vista's flop, it should provide free replacement installations to customers who have Vista, switching them to XP Home, Professional, etc., versions, with the new SP3 release, and DUMP VISTA NOW!!

carlsf
carlsf

I 15 seats and my clients 60 seats NO way will be going VISTA (sucks tried and gave up even with SP) and as for Office 2007 (Very BAD). If MS discountinues with XP PRO and Office 2003 we will NO longer even look MS way for products. An if you read the market (all products) once a customer makes the switch they NEVER go back, I would suggest MS be very careful.

itpro_z
itpro_z

If there is sufficient demand, why not continue selling XP? I would, although I would bump the price up. If people really want XP, they will certainly be willing to pay more.

j@n
j@n

Depends not on Steve Ballmer but totally on how quickly they (Microsoft) can churn out Windows Vista to come to the satisfactory level so that the users get to feel the all-inclusive XP taste and better functionality (and, of course stability) in Vista. Kudos to Microsoft for bringing out Windows in the computing world. Sorry Unix/Linux folks, I know you are dead against MS but MS has played a vital role in educating people and bringing awareness about computers to the people at large.

ina_don
ina_don

I think MS should just say that everyone who has bought Vista or a PC with Vista will get a free upgrade to 7. That will push sales because people who need new PCs will just buy even with Vista now and get an upgrade to 7 for free... That would push the adoption of Vista. [As long as 7 will be out in a year's time actually]

pepoluan
pepoluan

. . . why not do what Apple did? IMO, Vista is a lost cause. Microsoft should stop developing it, concentrate fully on Windows Seven, and do drastic things like relegate all legacy-support to a separate module, and write a lean-and-mean kernel for the Next Generation of Windows.  

Rockaby
Rockaby

For people working in IT, OS end of life happen. Don't wait until Microsoft stops supporting XP and then upgrade. Being forced to upgrade is more work, then being able to plan and do it right. Your end users should not drive the replacement but; IT shops should not wait either.

oparp
oparp

I am not interested in upgrading to Vista. XP is totally fine for what my users have to do. Customers should have the choice to request XP or Vista when buying a new machine, or at the very least, that the Vista licence includes the fact the customer can downgrade to XP if he wishes to.

david.valdez
david.valdez

My core products do not support Vista yet...I can't, in good faith, migrate users. I admit that my industry (auto retailing) is FAR behind the tech curve, but still...if your core apps don't support an OS, you can't migrate...

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

In my opinion, Vista is a transistional OS MEANT to take advantage of the advances in Technology (64x processing, dual core, etc...) and not to improve customer service. That was a secondary priority in the implemintation... My company is Xp based, we moved up when xp was introduced. I DID take Vista for a test drive on one of those trailers they sent out.(Got the t-shirt and everything) and even the tech rep hisself couldn't contradict the resource greediness of the OS (if I hear one more person say turn off AERO, I'm going to scream), and that the "benefits" don't outweigh the "deficits". (It even froze up while we were working with it in MS's "ideal environment) Anyway, I digress, the point I was making is, you are absolutely correct in your "good faith" philosophy. Newer is not always better, and don't worry about the "tech curve"; whether MS sells XP anymore, or if they support it or not, we in the tech field shouldn't care cause WE ARE the support. (that's why we get paid, right?)

$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$

[i]Newer is not always better, and don't worry about the "tech curve"; whether MS sells XP anymore, or if they support it or not, we in the tech field shouldn't care cause WE ARE the support. (that's why we get paid, right?)[/i] A lot of auto mechanics don't "support" cars for which replacement parts are unavailable. Even if there isn't a single service pack, malware removal tool or registry hack you don't have stored & indexed, it would be nicer if Microsoft either continues to support an OS that the market accepts, or Open Sources that OS and support for it in support of making your job, in the tech field, more doable.

kmartin
kmartin

The sell of XP should continue until Vista has a mjority of the software issues resolved. XP Profesional is used in manufacturing environments currently and not Vista due to its reliability. I do not see this going away until maybe the end of the year

michaels.perry
michaels.perry

Of course they should keep seling XP as most businesses don't want Vista. It's far too resource hungry so the hardware would need replacing as well as the OS - not a good business equation for slower performance! Plus MS MUST listen to users needs. Most of their customers are NOT in the US, but they just do not listen to what we want. We do things differently and spell things differently so we just don't want a US dictionary as well as, say, a UK one - we only want the UK one without any of the US bits.

Mikestevko
Mikestevko

There is nothing wrong with XP in comparison with the problems with Vista. Why get rid of a good thing?

justgus
justgus

YES KEEP THIS OP/SYS I tried Vista did not like!!!!!!!

teyoung68
teyoung68

I hope so ...... But to keep selling XP, Microsoft admits that Vista is a bust. So what do you think? I think they will stop the sale of XP for the everyday person and allow sales to small to middle sized business' only, just to save face with the Vista mistake.

tschoenr
tschoenr

Steve ? Reece Computers Systems is a small IT consulting, support and training firm in Half Moon Bay with about 500 customers, recently named Small Business of the Year by Leland Yee. We are a husband and wife owned California corporation with 16 employees, many of whom are Microsoft Certified, or on a track to become so. Randy Reece is CEO/CTO and I am its President. Our customers, who are mainly small businesses with anything from 1 workstation in a house, to 350 systems in a larger multi-site organization, consistently require the stability, smaller footprint, known interface, functional hardware drivers, and ability to work with the older applications that are driving their small businesses. These are folks who do not have the capability to invest in a new $15,000 chiropractic or dental system, buy a new $25,000 medical practice management system, purchase a new retail inventory management system, or buy brand new hardware simply because their desktop operating system has changed. They do not have the technical capability or the time to learn new systems quickly, and need the precious time they have to run their small businesses. These customers would be more likely to move to Windows Vista if it were more stable, and if they did not have to replace applications and hardware. TechRepublic published this article. I am writing to urge you to consider the very small business, and the non-profit organization, as you consider end-of-life plans for Microsoft Windows XP. These entities will need to replace desktop hardware in the coming 2 year period. For some organizations, it will not matter if they move to Vista. But for many, if they are forced to move to Microsoft Vista for one or more of their desktop systems, it will cause a ripple effect that could bankrupt them, or worse yet for Microsoft, cause a move from the Microsoft operating system. Regards, Terri Reece President, Reece Computer Systems

JCitizen
JCitizen

and you guessed it; has been an unqualified disaster.

armchairmusician
armchairmusician

Thank you, thank you... From a small business IT person.

ajn465
ajn465

It wasn't that long ago that XP was rightfully loathed by a great many people. But M$ kept at it; sending out update after patch after service pack... and what do you know? XP in it's current form is a pretty slick OS. It does a great job handling all kinds of media. The Windows picture viewer runs much better than a number of 3rd party apps I had tried. And thanks for SP3!! I had a number of issues (including boot freeze-ups) which were totally cured by installing the final pre-release version, recently. I can easily run my 2.4 gig AMD processor to it's limit running some of the A/V apps I use (even with 2.5 gigs of RAM). I know a more resource-hungry OS would necessitate a new CPU.. which means a new motherboard... which means my power supply may not be big enough... auggh!! C'mon, Redmond!! I waited thru the '90s with no computer because they obviously couldn't do what I wanted them to do. (My old man was a software guy back in the days of boxes of punch cards.. he knew where things were headed back in 1975.. and he was basically right, too.) Now with XP I can do all manner of A/V wrangling (I should point out that I'm a professional musician, not an oil tychoon). And it's really fun, and even productive. It's only reasonable to allow a good system like XP an extended life so we aren't strongarmed into buying all new hardware that we can't afford anyway. (We; meaning us mere mortals living paycheck to paycheck... which is most of us in the now-demolished middle class...)☺

pepoluan
pepoluan

. . . I won't upgrade to Vista. I mean, why should I? With XP SP3, I finally have a system that's stable, performs *really* well, quite secure, and I am out-and-out familiar with it. Not to mention the tens of employees in my office who are also already familiar with it. Should I chuck out a purr-fect working & productivity-supporting OS for something still half-baked? And for what? Eye candy (Aero & Dreamscape) that's immediately go invisible when employees start their work (maximize applications and -- voila! -- No trace of Aero & Dreamscape; they're hidden behind the maximized apps). All in all, I'll really stick with XP. The only way Microsoft can have me upgrade my XP's with Vista is to hire a hitman to stow me 6 feet under, and install a robot remotely controlled from Redmond. :D Uh... I think it's time to invest in a bulletproof vest :P

Par-Pro
Par-Pro

Going From 98 to ME you had to do a lot of Hardware and Software Updates. I build CPUs and when XP came out it was easy to update OS systems from 98 to XP without breaking the bank on new hardware or a full CPU rebuild. All you had to do in 98 format was pop in the XP disk and go. Now like B4 with ME you have to hunt dirver updates and hope like hell they work W/O all the tweeks that most of the world have no ideal about. Not everyone is an IT or builder with the know how to do all that is needed to revamp a old system. You do have a very fine point. I don't respond to meny postings, yours I do like and understand. Very well and to the point.

ed.adams
ed.adams

I, too make my living in IT. Microsoft will quit selling XP because that is what they do. I have been running Vista for over 6 months now. I won't go back to XP. Many things that I like much better, and anything I couldn't make work was already old and out of date anyway. No problems running ALL the older software I might use, and only have had to invoke compatibility mode with one program. The big deal is mostly a creation of the media and not the real world, kinda like the elections. This same thing happened when XP came out, when 98 came out, etc. etc. Instead of compaining that HP didn't write drivers for that old POS printer, use it as a reason to get something new! Having said that, I know that it has been problematic for businesses that run specialized software with dependent hardware. That is the developers' fault, not Vista's. THEY need to step up and fix it. Bottom line is we MUST move forward. XP has been around twice as long as expected. Count that as a blessing, and the reason why resistance (which is still futile) is so strong. If you think anything different, it is because you haven't been around long enough.

bfkauffman
bfkauffman

I've been in IT 40 years since the early IBM mainframe days and my opinion, along with most hard cores, is the direct opposite of yours. Your blindness is fully revealed by your "bottom line" conclusion that adopting Vista is a "move forward". I work in an IT based business with about 100 workstations and we have zero Vista machines. We're doing just fine thank you. The days when Microsoft can ram a new operating system down the throats of the computing world just because they think "it's time" or "it's a good idea" are over forever. Praise the Lord.

matsobane2000
matsobane2000

You are correct, if XP is doing fine without any problem so why do you want to move from it?..Stay with the best..

mike_patburgess
mike_patburgess

You know, it completely astounds me to hear people say that an OS is old and therefore we should abandon it for something new. This is absolute BS. UNIX has been around for quite some time and Linux will too. MS has too many versions of an OS on the market today and if they were smart, they would keep XP and add to that platform instead of trying to re-invent the wheel. If XP cannot be enhanced to add "vista like" features or Windows 7 then they have to re-think what it is the consumer wants and develope something that does not require a complete re-write of an OS every few years. These re-writes cause unecessary grief to business because all of their "home grown" applications or older applications will not work and it is very costly to go through the testing of new application to fulfill their needs. Those early adopters of Vista I salute you and pity you at the same time. You have put your money on a horse that never made it out of the gate. I now recommend to everyone that I talk to, "review linux as a viable OS and Open Office as the applicatons suite". Yep there are some challenges but they will be overcome.

jddaggs
jddaggs

I've been working with Windows OS's for quite some time now. As is with all things man made, sometimes we just don't get it quite right, so we improve on the next model. That being said, there has been many successful releases of the Windows OS, but there's been a few problematic versions as well. I feel that Idea behind vista is a good one, but think back to some of the other "not-so-successful" versions of Windows from the past that barely survived to their end-of-life dates like Windows 95 and Windows ME. Vista, in my opinion, is another one of these "not-so-great" versions of Windows, but in a good way. Vista will prove to be a stepping stone to the next "stable-and -successful" release. I think that the issues that current consumers and businesses are having will be ironed out. Vista will simply be the predecessor to a better OS.

zmhall
zmhall

Besides the fact that I shouldn't be forced to buy the new version of software from a software vendor that is worse than the version I have, it is a bloated slow piece of crap. My wife has a laptop that is 6 months old with a Dual Core processor and Vista Business on it, and it runs slower than my single core 3 year laptop. I won't go into all of the other particulars that should make her laptop run circles around mine. It can't because of a useless operating system sucking up all of its resources. And why in the world would I want to "downgrade" to a newer O/S only to find out that I now have no choice but to buy new printers or other peripherals when I don't need new ones. Why would I want to deal with a new O/S that is 33%-70% slower than the one I currently have? Why would I want to be forced into something I do NOT want, when there is no REAL reason why I should have to. There is no reason why MS can't just keep supplying XP until their next O/S comes out to replace its second generation ME! Your comment about the big deal being mostly a creation of the media and not the real world...DO WHAT??? Use the piece of junk software for a day...I didn't need the media to tell me anything...I could see it for myself. Your comment about not being around long enough...Sounds like you haven't been around long enough. Either that or you work for MS or make a crapload of money pushing their products. On another note, do you work with anyone who uses Autodesk AutoCAD? Tell someone they have to upgrade to the 2008 or 2009 version($2,000-$5000) just so they can start running vista and watch the software run slower than it has since the 2003 version came out. You won't be selling to them anymore. Guess I better get off of my soapbox, I could type a book on the reasons why not to "downgrade" to Vista.

Your Mom 2.0
Your Mom 2.0

...you know the rest of the phrase. I see no justification in upgrading just to have the latest and "greatest" (using that term loosely here). This is especially true for small businesses, as they may not have the IT resources that larger companies have. Why look for an excuse to buy a printer just so it is compatible with an OS that is basically the same as XP with more bells and whistles? (Well, except for the bloat, incompatibilities, annoying UAC, etc.) If you need a new printer, get a new printer. As for end of support for XP, how often has anyone gotten truly useful support directly from MS? I know that when I encounter issues I can't immediately resolve, Google is my tool of choice. I get more help with problems from sites like TR and the other guys in the trenches like myself than I ever have gotten from MS.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

"As for end of support for XP, how often has anyone gotten truly useful support directly from MS? I know that when I encounter issues I can't immediately resolve, Google is my tool of choice. I get more help with problems from sites like TR and the other guys in the trenches like myself than I ever have gotten from MS." Volume licensing entities might get some, I don't know. But as a home user, I get diddly from MS in the way of help and support if I'm not willing or able to pay for it. I ain't made of money, so whatever help I need comes via TR, googling an issue, or friends who know more than I do.

mhbowman
mhbowman

Based on Vista's public response, which hasn't been that great, they will continue to sell and support XP. To do otherwise would be to turn away profit, and tick off their existing user base. One thing that MS should be prepared for in the future is slower movement to adapt to new operating systems. People/businesses have finally caught on that it's better to wait for the first service pack release. There's a lot less expense, time, and stress involved when you're not the guinea pig discovering all of the issues/problems. Leave that to the beta testers, and developers.

mkfu
mkfu

I like Windows XP it is more stable and reliable

sureshkumar.one
sureshkumar.one

Ya microsoft should sell xp bcs xp is having still demand in the market for its good functionality..

Editor's Picks