Windows

Is that all there is? The end of Microsoft Windows XP

June 30, 2008, is the last day Microsoft Windows XP can be sold, at least officially. So, the question is: Now what?

Leaving the scene with a whimper and not a bang is the most-pervasive operating system ever devised; Microsoft Windows XP. New personal computers will now ship with the Microsoft's latest and greatest operating system Windows Vista. Are you ready for that? More importantly, do you know if you have choices?

Mary-Jo Foley, over on ZDNet, contemplates the potential of Eric Rudder's mysterious "Midori" project in her blog Goodbye, XP. Hello, Midori. Perhaps Microsoft still has some innovation and software greatness in them.

Of course, the closer iteration of Microsoft operating system is likely to be Windows 7. TechRepublic Executive Editor Jason Hiner tells us what he thinks is going to happen in Prediction: Microsoft will leapfrog Vista, release Windows 7 early, and change its OS business. His thoughts certainly generated some discussion when he posted it in Tech Sanity Check several weeks ago.

My thoughts -- I personally have absolutely no problem with Windows Vista. It has been a stable, secure, perfectly satisfactory operating system for me since the original release candidate. My gaming rig dual boots XP and Vista, but I never need XP to run any of my games. And my laptop, after resolving a driver issue with the WiFi card works great -- no problems ever.

Now, I know many of you blast Windows Vista, and I am sure some of you actually have legitimate problems, but my personal experience with Vista has been pleasant and productive. If you want to share your pain with us that's fine, but keep in mind that I have not had any trouble, so be sure to explain your situation fully -- perhaps we can troubleshoot it for you.

But no matter what you think, the die has been cast -- Windows XP is not the operating system you will have on your next PC -- whether it is your personal at-home computer or a new workstation. We are all going to have to get used to that. So, the question is really: How are you going to handle the passing of Windows XP? Are you ready for Windows Vista?

About

Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.

110 comments
oneqtcat
oneqtcat

Apparently the writer of this article has never attempted to use Vista as a musician. Microsoft has crippled our abilities with the Vista system, even when using MIDI. Driver's don't work with our equipment,and lord knows what else. After hearing literally thousands of complaints from working musicians, I have avoided Vista. If you are a musician, stay clear of Vista if you possibly can and scream as loud as you possibly can to Microsoft! The squeaky wheel might get the grease! Let's hope that with upcoming OS's we will not be left in the cold again!

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

Vista just doesn't work in the Enterprise. So, what choice do we have?

dcolbert
dcolbert

I just picked up a screaming deal on a core duo desktop that happened to include a bundled retail copy of Vista Home Premium. In the short time I've been playing with it, I see that it is certianly more OS X like, in a significantly beneficial way. First, it is far prettier. The 3D flip feature of Aero, the pop up preview window of minimized windows, the gadget plugins are all a page out of OS X bells and whistles. And, "so what"?!? If it is a good idea and enhances the user experience, I don't care if OS X had it first. I care if it can be done effectively in a Win32 environment I am used to. It requires more horsepower, and OS X is custom built for custom built machines in a tightly controlled environment from front to back. Microsoft has a far more daunting task in making a far more accomodating platform that works to some degree across a broad range of hardware that it has very little control over. A significant enhancement of Vista is the media integration built into the OS. They've obviously responded to complaints about media management in previous Win32s. I've been playing with a new digital photo frame and digital photos going back to the mid 90s. Most of them have been horribly disorganized for that entire period, like a shoebox full of assorted, mixed snapshots, multipled by a factor of 10. The built in slide show gadget allows me to let these pictures scroll unobtrusively on my screen while I work. I can quickly expand this in Windows Photo Gallery and rotate or otherwise make minor edits to the photo. The available freeware Resize tool is great too, as are the options to view a directory of images in different manners including HUGE thumbnails that are easily editable themselves. In a few hours I was able to effectively organize photos that I've been unable to get a handle on for over 10 years. Stability and performance haven't been a problem for me as of yet, but I haven't done much with it. The point is, Vista is progress forward for Win32 OS, despite what the media may say. It integrates features that should become standard in the Win32 OS. There may be areas where it has struggled, but I think that has more to do with preconceptions. Perhaps my experience with Mac OS X makes me more philosophically able to grasp the changes in Vista. I don't know if I'll stay with Vista at this point, but I don't see a reason to go back to XP currently. XP looks pretty crude and last generation once you get used to the XP interface and features, much the same way that XP made Win2k seem that way as well. I really think this whole debate has more to do with that than any flaws of Vista, at least at this point. People complained with XP about the changes compared to Win98 and W2kPro, too. Of course, WinME looked good at first too, but that feeling only lasted until the 3rd reinstall.

lyndonha
lyndonha

I have a serious Beef with VISTA. My business customers will not have anything to do with it. We support over 100 companies in this area and they have proprietary software that has proved that it will not run on a Vista pc time and time again. So dont tell me Vista is OK. One size does not fit all. XP Rocks and works for these companies and thats that.

rosarysrj
rosarysrj

um, seems to me that it is a user choice issue, since large corporations using xp seem to be doing so with great satisfaction, and great hesitations to switch over to vista, this adds validity and support to the individuals using xp and wanting to continue to do so. one of the largest issues in the industry is creating systems and applications that are user friendly, mentioned first and foremost in classes teaching the development of, I do not think it to be a lazy mans eye that is refuting vista, I do think that xp pro has become a favorite of the os, and though there is out with the old, in with the new, smart business is listening to those who are spending the bucks on ms products. I do not think it to be a resistance to change, I think it more to do with the actually sit down use of the product and the fact that majority of it's user are no longer in high school or college and do not afford the opportunities to be in the field of state of the art use. this could be a consideration in the future of development issues. many of us feel the forced feeding use of vista and being warned of up coming disaster per lack of changing to vista, and that the leaping frogging of xp pro to 7 will not be provided, though whispers there of! I am suspecting that many personal users are considering switching to apple products with the additional costs. we can learn from those who say they do not want to use something, even when others have made the transition and find not fault with doing so. so the cram will be on once 7 is delivered as those of us refusing to switch will either have to frenzy download vista to get to 7, or be leaped to it with all sorts of additional long sought security and support issue downloads, or just cave in and save for apple and it's devices, and lose some weight per the cost feature of an apple.

quark
quark

What, me downgrade to Vista? Not on your life! Now that I have SP 3 installed and XP working with stability, speed and integrity, I must go back to seven more years of getting a Windows operating system to work? Not on your life. What I cannot understand, is how Microsoft manages to sell - at exorbitant prices - this Vista thing about which books have been written telling one how to get it working??? Auldsod

suezanne
suezanne

My understanding is that you will be able to buy computers with XP from smaller system builders for a good while.

carlsf
carlsf

WAIT until sales start slipping, major manufactures start seeing sales slipping because people dont want VISTA. They will start offering PC's and Notebooks with NO O/S. My business and that of my clients are asking for XP PRO and if the cant get it then we go to the next supplier, until we get what we want and NOT what MS dictates.

mikifinaz1
mikifinaz1

I saw this coming for years and I have prepared. I bought a Mac and trained as well as a Linux box and trained. Now I don't have to use whatever trash Microsoft passes out. Vista is garbage, it requires too much hardware and runs like crap otherwise. Vista has driver problems and let's face it new is not always better. So, Bye, Bye Microsoft

PKA
PKA

hat an inane article.

tinyang73
tinyang73

You can purchase a vista business license, load xp using that license, and then call for activation and tell them what you did. Microsoft allows this and will authorize your install of xp on the vista license. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/letter.html There is the issue of xp drivers for new machines, but you can do your homework before you buy and then it's not a problem.

apwalter
apwalter

As far as I know XP will be sold for another year under a downgraded Vista license.

Tearat
Tearat

Windows XP will be the operating system on my next computer On the same computer I will have Linux All my new computers will continue to have those OS's until I decide to give up on MS altogether How long XP remains will depend on MS IF they stop screwing around and release a complete and fully functional Windows 7 I may adopt it But use of windows 7 will depend on how stable it is and how many screw ups MS make It is very simple MS Dont screw it up Get off your lazy corporate ass and do the job properly Really invest in your product Show that you give a damn about the people who will be using it

jck
jck

Load my own XP licenses dual boot or overwrite Vista, if I buy a pre-built/configured machine. :)

Tearat
Tearat

Is more like an advert for OS X than Vista OS X is a better choice for some people One of the most annoying things about Microsoft is They are more interested in bolting on some useless eye candy than fixing the OS underneath it The pretty stuff does sell it But it soon gets boring I wish they would put the same or more effort into fixing the old stuff as they put into promoting or creating the new Vista is almost a shadow of what it was going to be If you can believe what MS said it would be I was over ME before the first reinstall The lack of support for NTFS was one of its biggest problems That was another OS that Microsoft failed to deliver what they promised

jasonemmg
jasonemmg

I totally agree with your reasoning! We are not a large company with unlimited money and time to troubleshoot software compatibility with Vista. Until our software/hardware vendors are absolutely certain their proprietary software is compatible with Vista we are not changing anything!!! What's that good old saying: "If it ain't broke then don't fix it!"

Tearat
Tearat

You wrote "so the cram will be on once 7 is delivered as those of us refusing to switch will either have to frenzy download vista to get to 7, or be leaped to it with all sorts of additional long sought security and support issue downloads" People leapfrogged ME with little problems The OS before XP was ME People leapfrogged from 2000 to XP They will leapfrog from XP to 7 with no more problems than if they moved from Vista to 7 I suspect the majority will do just that MS had the chance to make Vista state of the art with many improvements over XP But they stopped and released it before it was finished Windows 7 may be what Vista was meant to be BUT we all know how MS has failed to deliver on what they have promised in the past PS one of the names given to Windows ME by MicroSoft was Microsoft Window 2000 Millennium Edition I still have a disk with that name on it

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

As of June 30, unless you fall into a special category, the next PC you buy with a Windows operating system will have Vista. XP is not available to the average buyer anymore. So you will automatically be "downgraded" to Vista.

davionics
davionics

Every time MS comes out with a new operating system I groan some, then get used to it. When XP came out I was annoyed; but then started noticing the dozens of intuitive niceties built into that O/S. Lots of right-click menus, drag capability and a very beefed up console window. And a way better file format (NTFS vs FAT). All in all, very pleased. But I don't yet get why Vista is an improvement over XP. What's so great about it? It's slow and bloated (even on a new 3MHz Dell), is not immune from crashes, and doesn't seem intuitive at all. Another thing: in the olden days you could count on processor speeds continually going up. So an O/S mfgr could get away with a slower O/S by saying future hardware will handle the additional code bloat. But that's not really true anymore. Yes, we have multicore chips, but I think silicon is hitting a dead-end at somewhere around 4 MHz. So, as I said above, I just don't get it.

dcolbert
dcolbert

This sounds like the same old rhetoric of the Anti-Microsoft camp. When OS X was the prettiest OS around, the Mac camp couldn't stop buzzing about all the nifty little things ("We have WIDGETS! Do YOU have WIDGETS?!? NO?!? Then you SUCK!!!") that OS X introduced. Apple is ALL about eye candy. Then, when Microsoft comes up with the same gimmicks, the story turns to, "You ripped it off from OS X"... I wish the *nix advocates could pick and argument and stick to it without later contradicting themselves on a biblical scale. Um, *I* don't care, who had it first, I'm not trying to be unique or original. I want interesting eye-candy and features that enhance productivity and data management. Vista delivers. They may not be INNOVATIVE ideas at this point, but they were overdue for Win32, and they're more than welcome arrivals. As far as security, Vista effectively embraces the same "Authenticate to Root" philosophy as all of the *nixes, now, so, if you go to that porn site, click on the link, and then authenticate to allow the download to install, it is pretty much your own darned fault. That should effectively do away with THAT complaint. And that is where most stability and performance issues under XP originate. Now, granted, there are still going to be a lot of dummies with a lot of copies of Vista, typing in their password to install "1000 free screen-savers and animated pointers". But you're not going to click on a site and get hijacked without any contribution anymore. Otherwise, stability is good, features are good, integration is good. You've got to throw some horsepower at 'em. You can pick up a 2gb, Core Duo PC brand new with decent graphics and HD for around $450 that will do very good with Vista. Or, for around $45, you could get an entry level Mac-Mini. If you like Mac and it works for you, fine. But the Win32 camp is likely to start embracing Vista soon now, if my experience so far has been any indication.

Tearat
Tearat

Since the price of gas keeps on rising along with a lot of other things I expect most people and companies will put off replacing their systems In fact I expect they will stay with the equipment that works and is already doing what it is meant to until it no longer works It looks like Vista arrived to late Personal I cant be bothered with the idiotic Lets replace it because its old mentality anymore I suspect a lot of people are now feeling the same way I expect the number of people who feel that way will increase as prices rise I have much more important things to spend money on Instead of replacing equipment that works fine just because it?s old Microsoft and many other businesses are going to have to work hard to convince others as well as me To buy their products They will need to convince me that I am going to benefit from spending money on their products They will have to get off their lazy corporate ass get out there and show me some real reasons why I should buy their stuff Hearing it second hand from some blogger on the web wont cut it

greg
greg

I cannot comprehend why people tolerate, much less praise, this bloated piece of crapware. 1. There is virtually nothing new or improved over the previous version. 2. I like my scanner, and I do not want to buy another one. (Vista crashes trying to use it). I also do not want to pay for all my security and disc-burning software again. I only installed about 10 of my 100 applications--God knows what else wouldn't work. 3. Moving around menu options for no reason is annoying, not helpful. 4. Being nagged every $%#$%@# time I install a program, or a thousand other things, is NOT security. It's obstructionist. Vista COULD have a whole new file system. It could have actual system-level security. It could be actually easier to use, in a hundred ways. It could be faster, and SMALLER, and more bug-free. But no... The improvements are few and neglible, and the problems are countless and growing. Before asking what's wrong with microsoft, I'm forced to ask what is wrong with people for putting up with (even defending) this piece of garbage?

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

I agree with that. I am amazed at the difficulty I have accomplishing a few odd things using Vista, in comparison to near thoughtless navigation of XP and 2K.

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

I hear about Vista being bloated and slow, but I see no evidence of that on any of my systems running Vista. Vista hardly ever crashes, certainly no more than Windows XP and the few times it has crashed can be traced to badly behaving drivers or applications. Do you have some examples to share of Vista being slow or crashing?

Tearat
Tearat

?OS X is a better choice for some people? What is the problem with that statement? Are you trying to tell me that there is nothing that OS X can do better than Windows? Are you trying to tell me that no one can do anything better with OS X than Windows? The same with Linux and Unix Just because I say some people may find OS X better than Windows I must be an Apple fanboy Next you?ll be telling me Vista is the only choice for every person on the planet and XP is totally unsuited for use by anyone in any situation If you are going to write a review of something Write a balanced one Don?t include statements like ?If it is a good idea and enhances the user experience, I don't care if OS X had it first.? Or is piracy ok with you Microsoft seem to think it?s bad But they seem to think they should be allowed to do it You called me a nix advocate You said I was a member of the Anti-Microsoft camp Or was it the nix camp So it was only fair to call you a Windows fanboy But I may have misunderstood But I wouldn?t be the only one would I? One more thing Don?t call people dummies just because they got sick of reading the same idiotic box that UAC keeps popping every time they try to install something There is a hell of a lot better ways MS could have done that They took the easy path as per usual

Tearat
Tearat

I say bad things about Windows and Microsoft So I must be a Lunix or Unix or Apple or whatever fanboy Or I must be saying the others are a better choice Get a clue you idiots And stop trying to turn this XP vs Vista discussion into a Windows vs whatever arguement What the hell do they put in the food over there? No wonder you yanks are unloved by so many around the world Yes the MS vs Apple vs Unix vs Linex debate is very very stupid It is a favourite argument of the idiot fanboys who are too stupid to think of any other way to defend their pet OS Really clever that Lets argue about which has the most defects Get real they should have zero defects ?I have yet to find any OS which is fully compatible with all the user expectations.? This is not about user expectations But Microsoft?s adverting campaigns have a lot to do with what is expected from Windows Perhaps they should stop misleading people The wow starts here I haven?t seen any wow have you? The woe starts here Is more like it ?Each specific workstation on the planet has a purpose and if you pick the right truck for the job you should be able to deliver the product.? Well most manufacturers make trucks that carry the same things the same way on the same roads Each new model is the same It?s a shame MS and Apple cant do the same ?There is no perfect OS and if you TechnoRat could help the world's developers to achieve the perfect OS then maybe your efforts would be best spent contributing instead of complaining.? When you decide to stop making things up let me know will you Good to see no complaining in your reply I bet MS and Apple would like their customers to stop complaining I have helped but that that has nothing to do with this ?... as for MS stealing from Apple - maybe you should check where apple got it's early ideas. - Xerox PARC. from the Alto!? That is the classic two wrongs make a right argument It is wrong There can be no discussion about that fact ?time to settle down and realize that evolution is painful. Automobiles took a long time to become a dependable technology for the masses. Now you can drive real fast with no special skills. You seem to expect an OS to permit "any" user to do "anything" without "any" problems. Unskilled drivers end up in the ditch much like unskilled users. Often the OS has nothing to do with the real problems experienced.? I had left this discussion alone until a couple of idiots decided to bring it back to life long after everyone else had gone somewhere else I guess they like to wait until they think no ones paying attention I am very thankful I don?t drive on the same roads as you Over here we have to have some very important skills to drive I helps us to avoid killing someone It is amazing how the roads the automobiles drive on change very little but they still mange to roll on them with every new model Just be thankful you don?t have to re-learn to drive every time you buy a new model of car The car is a self-contained unit it?s no good comparing cars to PCs I can bet there are lots of people having a problem with cars and cost of running them I can bet there is lots of pain out there now Maybe if we had had some real evolution of the automobile that pain would be far less The car of today should be able to travel 100 miles or more on a gallon of gas I do not expect an OS to permit any user to do anything without problems That would be your imagination I do expect the next generation of PCs to do the same things as the previous generation I expect the idiots who make them to add new features without screwing up that very important thing Its called compatibility It is the most important thing in IT There is only one thing that may be more important Stability and reliability You guys seem hell bent on trying to convince me they are not Or is that my imagination? You also seem to be hell bent on turning this into a Windows vs Mac vs Linux vs Unix and now vs CP/M argument Yes I remember CP/M But talking about it would bring another OS into the discussion When this discussion is about Windows Microsoft, XP and Vista are the topic of this discussion

VAR1016
VAR1016

The Lancia Fulvia (see: http://www.alma.it/vanzettip/Fulvia/fulvia.html and my blog http://var1016.blogspot.com)like various other classics e.g. Porsche 911 may easily be contrasted with Vista: The early cars are usually the best more or less; later they get heavier and softer! I suppose Vista might be all right if a) it could be run with about 60GB ram and b) one could disable those dreadful nannying messages. And also if could start in less than a week... Paul

design
design

I am so amused by your ranting. Everytime this operating system debate arises we here the same crap. MS vs Apple vs Unix vs Linex vs whatever. I have yet to find any OS which is fully compatible with all the user expectations. Each specific workstation on the planet has a purpose and if you pick the right truck for the job you should be able to deliver the product. I admin gear from one win95 with a legacy dos app to Macs for graphics and Win imagesetter servers. They all work great for the assigned tasks however they also all have problems from time to time. There is no perfect OS and if you TechnoRat could help the world's developers to achieve the perfect OS then maybe your efforts would be best spent contributing instead of complaining. ... as for MS stealing from Apple - maybe you should check where apple got it's early ideas. - Xerox PARC. from the Alto! time to settle down and realize that evolution is painful. Automobiles took a long time to become a dependable technology for the masses. Now you can drive real fast with no special skills. You seem to expect an OS to permit "any" user to do "anything" without "any" problems. Unskilled drivers end up in the ditch much like unskilled users. Often the OS has nothing to do with the real problems experienced. but then again, I have only been working with this stuff since CP/M was the OS of choice. ... we have evolved and will continue to do so. IMHO

dcolbert
dcolbert

My first car was a tricked out Datsun 510 (poor man's BMW 2002). The Lancia looks like it evolved from the same family tree of design as either of these classic vehicles. It is too bad that people feel that they have no choice but to buy a machine with a Win32 OS on it. There are usually options available, although they may not be as convenient as running down to the brick-and-mortar superstore, and for people who are not highly computer literate, the options may effectively be "no option at all". It is especially unfortunate when it forces someone at the beginning of the learning curve into an unproven and untested first release of a new OS. Obviously Microsoft's marketing shot itself in the foot in your case, where you have been turned off to Vista beyond repair. I do promise you, every major Microsoft Win32 OS, to one extent or another, experienced these kind of growing pains between the original release and the first few service packs. Vista has been more severe than others, but Vista is the most radical redesign since they jumped from Win98 to XP (A move that they mitigated with Win 2000 professional, to a large extent).

VAR1016
VAR1016

Thanks "dcolbert" for your reply (to my reply!). Some interesting points. For me Vista was a case, as I said, of no choice. I admit I thought it looked nice, but that's it really for the reasons I gave. As for AMD vs Intel, again, AMD is what the computer came with! And since I upgraded the processor, I am using the 4000+ in the project computer I am building in the hope of learning something about this incredibly complex business, so really I am tied in to AMD at present. Regarding the cars, I find all the exquisite sensitive handling I need in my 1967 Lancia Fulvia! Best wishes Paul

dcolbert
dcolbert

In general, I'm a free market libertarian. I'm not really consumed with the ethical integrity of what Microsoft or Intel or anybody else may or may not have done in the past, at least as it relates to my perspective on the suitability of their current products for achieving my PC goals. When I hear that they've got themselves in so much trouble that the potential results of an anti-trust lawsuit may include breaking them up, and this may have an impact on my experience with their products, *then* I am personally concerned. So, a core philosophical difference arises here. You have stronger principles in a situation such as this, I feel that I am more of a realist. I think this also illustrates your strong negative reaction to my original post. My obvservations are not an advertisement - they're an expression of my positive experience with Vista. I'm sorry you have difficulty distinguishing between the two, but that doesn't mean that your perception is valid.

dcolbert
dcolbert

Is no slouch, agreed, but it isn't up to the performance of a Core Duo, either, even apples to apples, with both running XP. But, I haven't tried Vista on my P4 3.4. I'll probably keep that system running XP for the foreseeable future and use it as a secondary system on my home network. It would be an interesting comparisson, though. Maybe I'll look into something similar professionally, where I can use my MSDN Vista license, and report back on my results. Microsoft approached device drivers and application access to the kernel differently in Vista to address security concerns - which certain other OS communities had been calling them out on for quite awhile. They addressed that, and Vista is absolutely more secure than XP. But the price was breaking a lot of legacy things (a trend that had already started, albiet less noticably, with XP). From my recent experience, they've done a lot to address those things they've broken, including getting those vendors to fix their apps and/or drivers to support Vista. As you point out, this isn't the first time that evolution breaks backwards compatibility. The other OS companies have come up with various solutions to address their legacy incompatibilities (I have OS 9 on my Mac OS X system, for example, a solution that is less than perfect, and certainly doesn't address my oldest, legacy OS 7 apps as well as I would like). This response is pretty rational, TechnoRat. I can at least see your points here. But I think Microsoft is actually making an effort to address your valid points, here. I didn't see any explanations in regard to this specific conversation. I just saw claims. I have seen other explanations about dissatisfaction with Vista here and in other places. Those were part of the reason I waited so long before adopting Vista. I think that reassessment is important in this industry. "This product was the best, it now isn't". If AMD starts consistently putting out more reliable CPUs than Intel, I'd make the switch. If it makes sense, past performance is no indicator of future performance, and I am interested in overall performance, not brand loyalty.

dcolbert
dcolbert

I'll tell you, years ago I was a big fan of AMD. I had AMD processors from the 386DX40 all the way up until the AMD K2-400 era. Then for a while, Intel jumped ahead with the P3-500, I jumped, and I haven't really gone back. I don't think all the problems are AMD. I think the VIA chipset has had a lot of issues over the years and that AMD tends to be stronger in the lower-end, budget DIY market and that particular segment got hit extremely hard by the bad capacitor electrolyte issue (that you may or may not know about, but is infamous throughout IT circles). So, in general, I avoid some things, I've got a couple of AMD systems, but I just fell into them. I prefer to build my own primary systems on Intel CPUs and Intel chipset motherboards. I might mention, I am a former Intel employee, I own stock in the company, but I was "redeployed" by Intel and had my position outsourced to India by a guy named Krishnan, so it isn't that I have any particular love for Intel as a company. I'm also not a fan of ATI graphics. My latest machine does have an ATI GPU, but I fell into that, too. If it had been my purchase, that would have been Nvidia. My choices in these cases are based on long term experience with stability and supportability, not bleeding edge overclocked performance, and obviously they're subjective and open to interpretation. Second, I'm NOT an advocate of being an early adopter on any new platform. You buy the first model year of a new car, you expect some bugs to still need to be worked out. I didn't adopt XP early. I didn't adopt Win2k early. Early adoption is virtually Public Release To Market Beta Testing. My experience is that my diverse system with an ASUS mb, an Intel Core Duo processor, a Nvidia chipset, a Marvell chipset integrated NIC, an Intel PCI nic, an ATI GPU, a bunch of different USB devices, and an HP OfficeJet lan wired All In One printer were all successfull found, PnPed and run stably with Vista Home Premium, which I upgraded to SP1 shortly thereafter with no adverse effects. I've got a Logitech webcam, a XV6800 Win Mobile phone, an Ipaq 2210 PDA, a graphic tablet, and a couple of external USB drives. I've found that the home oriented enhancements of Vista designed toward media management and convergence make me much more efficient than any other OS that I've ever dealt with. I've organized music, videos and photos that have been in disarray for over a decade, in less than a week of Vista use. And I find the graphic eye candy not just appealing, but effective. Aero looks cool, and makes managing multiple open windows a pleasure. I appreciate your detailed response into what trouble you encountered. I am a big fan of "the perception of your experience is what matters". If it didn't work for you and you were so put off by it that you don't want to gamble with it again, I wouldn't be the one to pressure you. But I do wonder if it is fair to put all the blame on Microsoft. Finally, would my current system perform faster on XP? Certainly. It would also perform faster with Ubuntu. Blistering speed isn't my #1 concern. That is a money versus desire kind of balance equation. Do I want the features of Vista or do I want something more basic that runs faster? Do I want faster performance but also want the features of Vista? If so, can I afford a Quad Core Extreme CPU and blazing subsystem to support it? It is all about what you are after. If you're looking for the fastest 0 to 60 on a budget, you're probably going to end up in a Camero. If you want something that has some finesse, handles well, and doesn't look like a cheap GM product inside, maybe a BMW is more what you want... If money is no object and you want it all, dig into those pockets and head to your Italian exotics dealer. Same thing, really.

Tearat
Tearat

Out of your reply It looks like this ?Stable as an absolute? It should have been in there originally? So, they should have skipped right past DOS to Vista with all the bells and whistles. There is no room for evoloution, let the OS makers get it absolutely RIGHT the first time, or it is our responsibility to reject them in any future attempts? I suppose it is really a telling sign of Micrsoft dominance and success that there are such rabid anti-microsoft users out there. I never said you were an Apple Fanboy. I'm starting to think you are a raving lunatic, though.? Why? Because it is starting to look like trolling Ok I did say Win 2000 but you over looked that 2000 and ME were suppose to be XP pro and home I see no problem adding extra security to that MS did it with service packs Something like UAC could have been included MS could have designed security into DOS Unless you believe there is no need for it on a non-networked stand alone PC Blocking commands unless you were an administrator would have been easy Guess it wasn?t part of QDOS But the main point was MS are slow slow slow Much like Vista The rest of your reply is just plain silly That is a nice way of putting it Raving lunatic? Some hints for you DO NOT bring other non MS OS?s into the discussions about Windows Same for Linux Apple and any others DO NOT write posts that look like adverts I hate spam just like everyone else I try not to troll You can do it if you really try I know you can One more thing I am not an Apple Fanboy I use both Linux and Windows I have been involved with PCs since the early 80s Before that they were just an interest I have use windows since win3 Hardly touched ME But I learnt what I needed to know about it I never bothered to learn much about windows before 3 it was not important One more thing It is easy to succeed if you ignore the law You can steal what you want Knock off anyone who gets in the way Blackmail to get what you want But success worked for honestly is hard Are you saying I should admire the crooks that get away with it? Or should I think of them as the low life scum they really are?

Tearat
Tearat

Have you tried to install Vista on the P4 3.4ghz HT Pentium D Please post back if you do it could be fun to read That CPU is anything but slow My main but not the only complaint about Vista is its incompatibility with older software and hardware Part of that is the cost factor Cost of new hardware Cost to upgrade the apps In the past you were able to buy the new OS and install it on the older hardware and it worked more often than not Apps worked more often than not I am sure many had different experiences Each new version of Windows reduces that until now With Vista it?s unlikely It has had problems with new hardware as well but that is not the point I am trying to make Vista is software how hard is it to fix it so it works with old stuff We have a software company controlling and dictating the future of IT Software is the thing that makes the hardware work nothing more We now have hardware being designed to work with software It should be the other way round MS are stifling hardware innovation Speed and capacity are not innovations They have always been around Windows and Ubuntu have different schedulers It is pointless comparing idle states PS I have seen lots of replies with very good explanations as to why Vista did not work for the person writing the reply on TR You must have missed all of those Or is there another reason?

VAR1016
VAR1016

Hello. OK: Last year I had a bit of money for a change and decided to get a new computer. My girlfriend warned me about Vista, so I went to the shop saw a HP computer at a reasonable price and asked "Can I get this with XP". They said "No" so I said "All right then" - Idiot. The comp?ter (desktop Pavilion) came with AMD 64 x2 4000+, 2GB ram (dual channel) 300GB hard drive. I expected fireworks from this; I did not get them. It was slow to start and slow to shut down. It took nearly two months to get my scanner to work. Frequent problems with Internet connection generally necessitating re-starting. And those infuriating messages all the time which drove me mad. The final straw came with SP1 which deleted all the system restore points and stopped the scanner working. (Note, I defragged regularly - scheduled - and used registry cleaners, Spybot, Lavasoft etc.). I plugged the scanner and printer into my old computer (XP) and had everything going in a few minutes. That was that. Vista in the dustbin, XP installed. Everything works, no Internet problems, no stupid messages and the computer was much faster. It's faster still now with 4GB ram installed and a AMD 5600+ processor. No Vista for me - ever. Best wishes Paul

dcolbert
dcolbert

If you believe you have an absolutely stable OS, I've got a bridge to sell you. Linux doesn't EVER have Kernel Panics, because it is ABSOLUTELY stable, right? It should have been in there originally? So, they should have skipped right past DOS to Vista with all the bells and whistles. There is no room for evoloution, let the OS makers get it absolutely RIGHT the first time, or it is our responsibility to reject them in any future attempts? So then, *nix should have had logical, rational package management that works reliably from the START, instead of multiple different ways of installing and managing packages that eventually began to evolve into several more or less standards that continue to evolve today? I suppose it is really a telling sign of Micrsoft dominance and success that there are such rabid anti-microsoft users out there. You don't see a lot of people taking an Anti-Mac or Anti-Linux perspective as a passionately held core philosophy. Kind of like Anti-Americanism, there are some people that hate a success just because of the success. I never said you were an Apple Fanboy. I'm starting to think you are a raving lunatic, though.

dcolbert
dcolbert

Really? What kind of issues did you have, specifically. (Not "it just ran slow"). What kind of system, specifically? Just academic curiosity, here. Because mine is flying with a 5.2 rating and the Core Duo is the slow ship in the fleet for my Windows Experience Index rating. I'm struck by how these Vista complaints are all drive-bys. They keep SAYING it sucks, but they don't ever say specifically HOW it sucked. In my little "apple OS X ad", I addressed specifically how Vista enhances my Win32 experience. All I've gotten back is, "You're wrong, Vista sucks!" without any real justification. Hmnnn. I mean, I don't think I'd want to run Vista on my previous P4 3.4ghz HT Pentium D (which is technically a "dual core", although it is virtual). That seems like it might be a challenge. But my current system is buzzing along great. There is more CPU utilization at idle, but it is doing a lot more. Ubuntu has a lot more CPU utilization at idel when you've got advanced desktop graphics enabled, too.

Tearat
Tearat

But I will I am not an apple fanboy I don?t care what MS has stolen from Apple (Yes I do they are thieving pirates) The MAIN and MOST IMPORTANT thing is the real OS One day MS will fix it But they will have to be backed into a corner with people pointing guns at them before that happens Productivity goes down drain if your PC crashes and you lose hours of work The bells and whistles will be of no help I do not trust MS with the security of my network You can, but that is your problem not mine The problem with UAC is people just click on it without thinking But that subject has been beaten to death on this and other forums It should have been introduced with Windows 2000 not Vista Or it should have been part of Windows and Dos from the start Windows should be stable by now Not mostly stable Not stability is good You know stable as an absolute Meaning it wont fall over You tell me when was the first time MS said we would have a stable OS I have forgotten it They have promised so much that you forget after a while The Win32 camp will put up with Vista because they have no choice Most of the Win32 camp have looked at Vista and said ?What do I get and for how much?? It should have been Win64 camp years ago Vista should have been 64-bit and no 32-bit Just try getting it to run on a 32-bit machine Who knows you could get lucky Yes you?re right it will be business as usual everyone else will clean up after MS We have been doing it for a long time now Finding solutions to the problems they create All because the uneducated keep buying the eye candy One more thing I am not an apple fanboy

VAR1016
VAR1016

"You can pick up a 2gb, Core Duo PC brand new with decent graphics and HD for around $450 that will do very good with Vista" Really? Mine didn't. It did with XP though and will continue to do so! Paul

Tearat
Tearat

?Why should Microsoft Be compelled to sell a product indefinitely simply because YOU prefer it? They're not forcing you to stop using XP. If you've got it, and you've got a machine with it installed, keep running it. They'll support you up to 2014. Seems pretty generous to me.? No that is not what I wrote One more try Everyone will have to buy new hardware at some time Microsoft have taken away the option of using your old OS and the apps For many it is not just the cost of hardware plus the OS But the extra hardware like scanners printers application software etc The cost of training and lost productivity The list goes on and on Much of the cost would be reduced if MS produced and developed a standard OS that was truly compatible with previous versions This has been beaten to death in the forums but there is always some idiot who has to read it over and over again and again You want people to tell you what problems they have had with Vista They have in this and other forums TR gives you a search use it ?If you can't buy a NEW copy from them, what is the argument here? You can't afford a new computer, right? Then why would you need a new copy of XP? If you CAN afford a new computer, you can get it with Vista.? That is just plain wrong If you believe everyone who buys a new computer can afford the OS as well as the many other costs you are wrong PC?s always fail at the worst possible time The extra cost of an OS, which you already have, and the other costs make it so much worse ?I don't see where your logic says that Microsoft shouldn't be able to stop selling their product. Should Intel be forced to sell 8086/8088 processors, because some people still want to run classic DOS applications in their "native" environment?? Intel does sell 8086/8088 processors they are part of the modern versions You can run classic DOS on the modern PC Intel and Amd do a hell of a lot better than MS when it comes to compatibility with their old products The rest of your post is nothing but an insane rant I have already stated there are people who will like and have success with Vista So you tell me what is wrong with it Lets see if you are just another Windows fanboy ?Bone up with some evidence, or continue to illustrate that the Anti-Microsoft, Anti-Vista camp is a house of cards. Doesn't amtter to me either way.? That is just a joke There has been so many people who have provided evidence on TR and other forums But it makes no difference There is always some idiot who pops up wanting everyone to repeat it just for them Use the damn search that?s what its there for

dcolbert
dcolbert

Be compelled to sell a product indefinetely simply because YOU prefer it? They're not forcing you to stop using XP. If you've got it, and you've got a machine with it installed, keep running it. They'll support you up to 2014. Seems pretty generous to me. If you can't buy a NEW copy from them, what is the argument here? You can't afford a new computer, right? Then why would you need a new copy of XP? If you CAN afford a new computer, you can get it with Vista. I don't see where your logic says that Microsoft shouldn't be able to stop selling their product. Should Intel be forced to sell 8086/8088 processors, because some people still want to run classic DOS applications in their "native" environment? You're wack, technorat. You're ranting. Everything you said in that last post is totally off base, including your rants about me trying to make this about other OSes. If you want to keep this to MS, that is fine, because your arguments there are weak, as well. I've given reviews and opinions about enhancements, I've stated that I've seen no instability. I've supproted my claims. Your claim is a completely unsupported, "Vista sucks". Bone up with some evidence, or continue to illustrate that the Anti-Microsoft, Anti-Vista camp is a house of cards. Doesn't amtter to me either way.

Tearat
Tearat

Yeah right you got me all worked out ?I haven't seen this Vista instability.? Where have I seen that before? It?s the same old ?I don?t have a problem so there is no problem? Garbage you find in every forum Why you insist on bringing Apple or Unix or any other OS into a discussion about Windows beats me It looks a lot like trolling So cut it out I am not interested in anything you have to say about Apple or any non MS OS Get the clue and stop being stupid This is a WINDOWS discussion Even the Dos stuff has very little to do with the Windows of today Windows NT is closer Vista does deliver improvements that some will like For others it has no importance at all Get that clue? The most important things about Windows are reliability stability and compatibility Not some stupid aero desktop Not the eye candy Not the multimedia rubbish Get that clue? ?Vista delivers improvements I am interested in, and those improvements justify the $400 I spent on a new PC to run it ($400 including OS).? Why don?t you drop the sales pitch $400 dollars is a lot of money to someone who has very little Get that clue? Why should anyone have to spend anything just to carry on doing the same thing? Get that clue? Microsoft has made it impossible for many to carry on without paying They remove the old OS from the market They force people to buy the new OS when they buy a new PC Because they will not activate the old OS on the new PC They replace the old OS with a new version that will not work with many pieces of software Same with hardware Get that clue? ?You may not be an Apple Fanboy, but you're some kind of manic hater, TechnoRat. Your passion comes off as fanatical.? Or it could be I don?t like trolls Or it could be I don?t like professional liars Some people call them salesmen You will find them in marketing and advertising You will find them running many companies Microsoft comes to mind Got the clue yet dude? Or are you still clueless

dcolbert
dcolbert

Up your meds. The dosage is too low. I haven't seen this Vista instability. *nix derivatives are arguably a 30 year old OS that still has many of the legacy issues that it has had from day 1. You can put a fancy Mac front end on it, but it is still *nix underneath. Microsoft has, repeatedly completely redesigned it's fundamental OS approach during those 30 years, turning Windows from a Shell for DOS into DOS a shell in Windows. If the system you have does what you want, congratulations. I've been buying and upgrading PCs since the mid 80s because I've yet to find one that made me go, "This is it, this delivers EVERYTHING I'll ever want from a PC! The Commodore Amiga is the apex of personal computing technology". Vista delivers improvements I am interested in, and those improvements justify the $400 I spent on a new PC to run it ($400 including OS). That price is less than HALF what I paid for a Commodore 128 system in 1987, so I *really* don't see what the complaint is. You may not be an Apple Fanboy, but you're some kind of manic hater, TechnoRat. Your passion comes off as fanatical.

Tearat
Tearat

Of thinking I am an Apple fanboy Apple will start to do the same things as Microsoft It is the American corporate way This video sums up reality and how I feel about the modern OS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d85p7JZXNy8 Guess which OS sucks the most? WINDOWS But there are some things I like in almost all OS?s But they DO NOT outweigh the bad I wrote ?Your post Is more like an advert for OS X than Vista? Drop the hurt accused tone Like you didn?t know what I meant It doesn?t make any difference what you add to a defective bloated slow OS It will still be a defective bloated slow OS Microsoft HAVE NOT delivered what they said Vista would be That is MS SOB But if you still don?t get it I will try again I don?t care what small improvements MS have made to Windows The thing I care about is the real OS and what they are going to do to eliminate The bad design Make it truly stable Stop it crashing And finally Fix their damn mistakes But that requires a change in thinking, which is beyond Microsoft You MS fanboys can TWITter on all you like about the eye candy and unimportant crap that MS have added to their ten-year-old OS The rest of us will carry on cleaning up and coping with their mess I am not an apple fanboy One more thing ?If you're a consumer, and you want the slick media content management that Apple has delivered, but you want a Win32 solution that integrates well with your personal life, Vista is a giant stride forward, whereas OS X was a compromise (You can have the one, but you have to give up the other).? Are you kidding? That has got to be a joke In this day and age it should make no difference what the underlying OS is you should be able to have that regardless of the OS I am not an apple fanboy One more thing Microsoft marketing misfired because they tried to convince us that an unfinished bug ridden OS would be better than a mature and mostly fixed OS I am not an apple fanboy One more thing ?In either case, an upgrade to a Vista capable PC and a license of Vista Home Premium is going to be less expensive than buying a Mac Mini, and you're still going to be shopping for a monitor, keyboard and mouse if you go that route? What the hell are you talking about? You do know about USB? Why the choice of Vista Home Premium? I am not an apple fanboy I have a PC that runs more than one OS with emulators that runs more OS?s It does what I want I have tried Vista it added nothing important to Windows FOR ME I had intended to use it as my primary OS But because of MS SOB I gave up and went back to XP sp2 then sp3 I may try Vista again but it may not be worth the effort I may just wait for Windows 7 I am not an apple fanboy One more thing The no-brainer is Why spend money buying something When the system you have already does what you want I am not an apple fanboy One more thing I am not an apple fanboy

dcolbert
dcolbert

In your response where you accused my Vista review of being an advert for OS X, the applies here, but it still isn't an advert for OS X. It is absolutely an argument against it. Vista makes the biggest advances in CONSUMER feature enhancements, not corporate productivity enhancements. If you're a consumer, and you want the slick media content management that Apple has delivered, but you want a Win32 solution that integrates well with your personal life, Vista is a giant stride forward, whereas OS X was a compromise (You can have the one, but you have to give up the other). If Microsoft marketing has misfired on Vista, it is by pushing Vista as a corporate upgrade at all. They should focus on a core competition as a consumer product going head to head with Apple. That is a fight for 5% of the market share total, and any amount of that 5% that Microsoft can successful shave off is gravy. From a corporate perspective, enhanced media content management is kind of a null argument, in most cases. In either case, an upgrade to a Vista capable PC and a license of Vista Home Premium is going to be less expensive than buying a Mac Mini, and you're still going to be shopping for a monitor, keyboard and mouse if you go that route. Seems like a no-brainer, to me.

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

Speaking for myself - I neither praise not pan Vista. All I am saying is that the problems you and others are describing have not manifested themselves in any of my PCs running Vista. Vista works for me. It is just an operating system.

Tearat
Tearat

After thinking about it I think the easiest change was 95 to 98 That includes all the different versions of 95 and 98se Since then the time to adapt to each different OS has increased From 98 to ME was longer From ME to XP took longer again XP to Vista longer again These are short periods and I do realise the OS?s are larger Just something to think about

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Think back several years. Did you find 2K intuitive when you came from 9x, or can you just thoughtlessly navigate them now after developing several years of habit? I have yet to find -anything- about computer use that's 'intuitive'.

cettech
cettech

I constantly hear people defending crashes in Vista (or for that matter any of the Microsoft OSes) as the fault of bad drivers or applications. While that statement is true on the surface, the real problem is an operating system that is so fragile and poorly designed that an application or driver can crash it! I place most of the blame of crashes solely on the architecture not being designed better to protect this from happening as other true pre-emptive multitasking operating systems have in the past -- e.g. OS/2.

greg
greg

I cannot comprehend why people tolerate, much less praise, this bloated piece of crapware. 1. There is virtually nothing new or improved over the previous version. 2. I like my scanner, and I do not want to buy another one. (Vista crashes trying to use it). I also do not want to pay for all my security and disc-burning software again. I only installed about 10 of my 100 applications--God knows what else wouldn't work. 3. Moving around menu options for no reason is annoying, not helpful. 4. Being nagged every $%#$%@# time I install a program, or a thousand other things, is NOT security. It's obstructionist. Vista COULD have a whole new file system. It could have actual system-level security. It could be actually easier to use, in a hundred ways. It could be faster, and SMALLER, and more bug-free. But no... The improvements are few and neglible, and the problems are countless and growing. Before asking what's wrong with microsoft, I'm forced to ask what is wrong with people for putting up with (even defending) this piece of garbage?

Max_in_OH
Max_in_OH

I've had NO problems with Vista. I prefer it to XP in almost all situations. I haven't seen any of the problems some of you report, and as for the speed thing... I find that XP does run a little bit (very little) faster than Vista in comparing new loads. Vista seems to keep running, while (as everybody knows) XP gets slower and slower until you reload it to get that new car smell again. Haven't needed to reload a Vista machine yet due to performance drops.

VAR1016
VAR1016

Well I try to be fair... I have moaned and ranted here and in the questions forum about Vista, but in the seven months I ran it it never really crashed although I think it froze a couple of times. And Vista, I thought did look nice. My new computer had an AMD 4000+ processor and 2GB of dual-channel ram, and I expected speed; this I did not get. And all those annoying warnings... The final straw was the installation of SP1 which deleted all the system restore points. It prevented my scanner from working - and that had been a mighty struggle in the first place to get going. So I installed XP: everything worked immediately and faster. Why on earth would I go back? There are those who say "Oh but Vista can be made to work well" etc., XP works well "out of the box." And if Vista is supposed to be the wonder product, why is tweaking necessary? Q.E.D. Paul

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

I prefer a lengthy explanation to an unhelpful "Vista sucks" rant. It's too bad you had so much trouble with your mother's Dell machine. My experience with Vista has been much better. You may have had the double whammy of Vista and a lemon PC. My brother bought a Dell a few years ago and it arrived DOA -- they came out and replaced the power supply and the motherboard in a matter of days, but I kept wondering how they could ship it in that condition. As for Vista crashing a few times a week - doesn't happen on either of my Vista PCs. I can't remember the last crash.

SundayBiker
SundayBiker

My cheapo $400 laptop with 1.8Mhz core 2 duo and 512 ram is a little faster than my 5 year old desktop with 2.6M and 2 gigs of ram and 4 gigs of readyboost, both running vista, for different reasons (desktop's OS is 5 y o and upgraded, slower bus speed, sata vs ata, etc.). I like that you put Vista PCs to sleep and comes right back, way faster than turning off with XP (stand by doesn't work well), I hardly restart them ever. Like Palmetto said, incompatible hardware (and software) ruins vista big time, you have to be very careful when u upgrade. I don't think you have problems with preloaded PCs you can buy today, but it was a problem with a lot of the first ones a year and more ago. I would say it's the same with the drivers.

davionics
davionics

Actually, yes I can, Mark. A few months ago, my mother bought a new PC from Dell. I would have liked to build her a custom PC as I did for myself, but time didn't permit it so I suggested a reputable mfgr, like Dell and had her buy a PC sporting a dual-core 3MHz uP, 2Gb of 800MHz dram, and a fast SATA drive. Not bleeding edge, but not a slouch either. At that point Dell didn't offer XP as an option so we went with Vista. I spent a few days transferring her old s/w and setting it up for her. It crashed within the first few days, ran slower than XP on her old PC and was somewhat buggy. There was a mouse pointer problem that drove me nuts. I must say Dell's web-chat based help quickly resolved the mouse pointer issue, but the company refused to let her downgrade/upgrade/sidegrade to XP. Someone in a recent blog mentioned that Vista only crashes about once or so per week for them. I say that anything that crashes that often is garbage. XP crashes about once or twice a year for me and I even find that marginally acceptable. There may be driver and hardware issues, but a "badly behaving" driver shouldn't have the power to take down the whole system, especially if it's related to a non-critical peripheral. It'd help if there were better diagnostice that tell you why the crash occurred instead of a string of meaningless characters in a field of blue. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I am a programmer and very interested in ways of automating Windows. I would have loved to see true scripting capability added to Windows, so folks could automate their applications. [are you listening, MS?] I'd also love to see a UI that is amenable to deep modification, such as is possible with MS's XAML. That is, I'd like the ability to apply the same programmability that developers have when writing Windows applications, also apply to the Windows UI itself, so end users can take advantage of it and configure it to their liking. MS has, in its' time, come up with some truly brilliant ideas, such as .NET. But Vista seems to me just a thin veneer over some old code with no really new thinking involved. Am I wrong? Am I missing something? It seems to me introducing a new operating system is the perfect opportunity to showcase some of the brilliant ideas that have been percolating at MS, lo these past seven years. And if you don't have any really novel ideas you have no business trying to force a new O/S down our throats! Sorry about the long-winded response. Dave

Editor's Picks