Windows XP Definitely Dead In June

http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9929405-56.html?tag=nefd.pulse

HP said it plans to continue selling the "pre-downgraded" desktops, notebooks, and workstations to its business customers until July 30, 2009. Dell is already pitching the same option on its Web site and promising the models will stick around long after it stops taking standard XP orders on June 18. Other computer makers tell CNET News.com they are still exploring what to do but also want to sell XP beyond June 30.

There are limits to the approach being taken by HP and Dell. Only the Business and Ultimate flavors of Vista come with downgrade rights, meaning consumer machines can't be sold in a similar fashion.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure there will be ways for the OEMs to satisfy consumer/home users' want or need for XP.
 
What's with the talk on OSX running on PCs? Even if all Hardocp+anandtech+all tech site readers hack and install OSX on their PCs, it's still not going to "take off" until Dell, HP-Compaq, Gateway picks it up and provides support for it. Not to mention apple probably isn't going to allow them to do it.

In other news, Vista fans dumped their old still-working 10yr old cars, CRTs, refrigerators, airconditioners etc and bought new ones to prove that they are dead serious about keeping up with the times.
 
"Spokeswoman?" Yeah, I'll take Ballmer's word on it, thanks.

RETAIL SALES will end in June. Service for Windows XP SP2 ends in 2009, SP3 ends in 2014. Normally, SP3 support would end in 2012, but they have an extended support program going on.
 
What is this with Vista haters who think Windows 7 will make a difference?
Windows 7 is just an 'improved Vista' just as Windows XP is just an 'improved 2000'. The driverbase and application compatibility that Vista is now creating is what makes Windows 7 an easy transition. You don't seem to realize that you NEED Vista, even if you don't plan to use Vista yourself, but move straight from XP to Windows 7.

Having said that, I personally have been using Vista on two of my systems for a while now, both well above Vista's minimum specs, and I've come to like it better than XP. I have no driver, application or performance issues, and the new features in Vista make some of my tasks easier and faster. I still have XP and XP x64 installed, but I've not booted into either for a while now... and when I do, I'm starting to get annoyed by the poor multitasking and disk caching and such, making some large applications like Visual Studio 2008 really slow to start.
 
Living Weapon said:
I'm aware of at least one Fortune 500 company that still has a support contract for Windows 2000. Basically, M$FT is doing what they can to transition off old products, so they can focus on their roadmap - which is good for all of us in terms of features and security. However, there will always be a few big companies that would rather pay extra (and I mean lots extra) to delay updating thousands or tens of thousands of desktops, especially if those machines are old enough to also require hardware replacement. Personally, I see keeping legacy crap on desktops as an expensive proposition once the machines are +3 years old, but there are many factors in such a decision that vary from one shop to another </shrug>

At the end of the day it is all just economics, but so long as there is at least 1 big company paying to renew support, we all get patches via Windows Update (w00t!)
Click to expand...


For a big corporation, a good percentage of the computers are being used for general purpose things such as wordprocessing. You don't need a top of the line system to do that.

Then to upgrade your hardware, it's going to cost a lot of money. We're talking, as in the case of the corporation I work for, thousands of systems.

On top of that, the guaranteed problems, and costs you are going to have upgrading your OS's and software. Even if they are the very exact computers, down to the very smallest component, each system has it's own temprament, where everything may not work on them.

.
 
In other news, Vista fans dumped their old still-working 10yr old cars, CRTs, refrigerators, airconditioners etc and bought new ones to prove that they are dead serious about keeping up with the times.
Click to expand...

Cars are more than transportation to some people, and CRTs died at only 24". Not everyone is so frugal as to think about everything with a utilitarian mindset of "if it still works, I'll just keep it."

I think you're posting in the wrong forum to tell people that upgrading their possessions is wrong. :)
 
Ahh the good old Freon-12 refridgerator.

Far more efficient than anything made today... But on the one in ten thousand chance it actually started to leak, there is theoretical damage to the ozone layer if it should ever get that high up theoretically.

Still using 21" CRTs here too in all its glory. Still waiting for LCD HDTV's to move out of the 10-bit colour range (and not the fake 14-bit either) and use a flicker free lightsource (not CCFL), and bring the HZ rate up to non-headache inducing (90 or 120hz)
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Perhaps MS could do some R&D on ways of seamlessly implementing a new OS if they insist on pushing out the latest. I know my office isn't going to touch Vista anytime soon. We're still using Win2000 and have a handful of WinXP workstations.
Click to expand...

Dende said:
You're exactly right it takes months of planing and entire teams of people to implament an OS change. I work for a furtune 100 company and they are looking a vista and basicly said no way to upgrading because of the time involved and the lack of any real world reason to upgrade....
Click to expand...

I also work for a prominent company (not publicly traded). However We just moved to XP a couple years ago. Prior to that we were using 2000. To be quite honest though, I wish MS would stop supporting the old OS. Make the large companies ditch their archaic systems. Its frustrating when you're still having to putz around in a dos environment.
 
ZenOps said:
Still using 21" CRTs here too in all its glory. Still waiting for LCD HDTV's to move out of the 10-bit colour range (and not the fake 14-bit either) and use a flicker free lightsource (not CCFL), and bring the HZ rate up to non-headache inducing (90 or 120hz)
Click to expand...

If I were you, I would auction your eyes off. With those babies, you could be a billionaire!
 
Scali2 said:
What is this with Vista haters who think Windows 7 will make a difference?
Windows 7 is just an 'improved Vista' just as Windows XP is just an 'improved 2000'. The driverbase and application compatibility that Vista is now creating is what makes Windows 7 an easy transition. You don't seem to realize that you NEED Vista, even if you don't plan to use Vista yourself, but move straight from XP to Windows 7.
.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, Windows 7 will be a modular OS, meaning you can install the bare minimum and build it up when you need added functionality. This "may" be a good thing since people don't want bloatware on their computer and are satisfied with the minimum to run and load faster. (an assumption non the less, but if articles are right, it could prove to be interesting)

Now regarding Vista haters, I for one don't like Vista as a number of us tested it for a year, I had it loaded on a dual core laptop with 2GB ram. As a result, our company of 30,000 employees will skip Vista all together due to application incompatibility issues and hardware resources required to run it.
What OS would take literally 20 hours to copy a file? Vista with SP1 is still significantly slower to copy file over a network than XP.

Anyway, I think the "haters" have a very compelling reason to "hate" Vista, especially in the IT world.

For the average Joe that only browses and use it for email, I see no issues with Vista.
 
shlooky said:
From what I've read, Windows 7 will be a modular OS, meaning you can install the bare minimum and build it up when you need added functionality. This "may" be a good thing since people don't want bloatware on their computer and are satisfied with the minimum to run and load faster. (an assumption non the less, but if articles are right, it could prove to be interesting)
Click to expand...

That's just marketing babble.
The underlying technology is based on Vista. Besides, even if you actually will get such a modular system, won't you still want to install most stuff anyway? You'll want the GUI, networking, basic firewall features, virusscanning perhaps, Windows Update etc...
In Vista you could also disable services you don't want... but they don't really make a big impact anyway.
Besides, not everything you install will eat up memory or CPU power. A lot of stuff isn't loaded unless it is actually used, which may be never.

I think in practice it won't make a difference for most users.
 
I just talked to my system supplier SUPERCOM, here in Canada, and they have been guaranteed OEM XP availability until Jan 1 / 2009.

Cheers!
 
I'm too young to remember, but how long did it take Wind98 to gain support over WinXP? Did
Win98 have slow and sluggish sales for the first couple of years it was on the market? A new type of operating system always takes a while to become commonplace. The major draw back to WinVista is the fact that most people need to upgrade their entire computer just to use WinVista, which in the end makes people stand pat because most people aren't willing to spend much.
 
sliverjazz said:
I'm too young to remember, but how long did it take Wind98 to gain support over WinXP? Did
Win98 have slow and sluggish sales for the first couple of years it was on the market? A new type of operating system always takes a while to become commonplace. The major draw back to WinVista is the fact that most people need to upgrade their entire computer just to use WinVista, which in the end makes people stand pat because most people aren't willing to spend much.
Click to expand...

Silver, you mean XP gaining support over 98? At first people (including me) didn't want any part of XP.

Just about everyone I knew who used computers for work were using either 98SE (really!) or 2000 as that was touted as a business os. None of them wanted to go XP due to cost, training and the problems (remember, this was right after ME - no one wanted a repeat of that nightmare).

I was running 98SE (after my own brief encounter with ME *shudder*) and loved it, heard the horror stories about XP, knew my puter was in no way ready and I had ZERO understanding of anything hardware-based. Like installing RAM was beyond me - I'm now the resident "geek" which is really sad.

After saving up and having a new computer built and having XP SP1 installed on it, it was great from day 1. Yes I waited until SP1, had 2 computer techs advise me to wait - whether they were right or wrong is irrelevant now.

At the time Vista came out my (now) older computer was maybe 6 months old? ran the "advisory" and found out my computer could only run Vista Basic. Unless I wanted to upgrade my GUI, add more ram (had 1 gb in there already, thank you) and a few other things ... spend how much on BASIC? and have to spend more to upgrade hardware, lose compatibility for certain programs and peripherals I use daily? Sorry, I don't think so.

My next computer? That's (hopefully financially) a couple years away - I'm still paying for the one in my sig. The internal memo re: Windows 7 doesn't exactly fill me with glee tbh. Maybe by then I'll have learned to like Macs, who knows!
 
Windows 98 wasn't really 'new'... It was an improved version of Windows 95.
But Windows 95 did have the same problems as Vista has now: people needed more memory and faster hardware to run it properly, and there were problems with hardware support. On top of that, the stability of Windows 95 was horrible at first.

At the time, Windows NT already existed... Most organizations used Windows NT because they could afford the hardware, and it had much better security, right management, networking etc.
In a way, Windows NT was what Vista Business or XP Pro are now, and Windows 95 was like XP/Vista Home.

So back in the day home users went from DOS to Windows 95, and organizations went to Windows NT.
Then Windows 2000 was the new generation of NT, where Windows 98 and later ME were newer versions of Windows 95.

The problem for home users came when Microsoft introduced Windows XP Home and Professional, and ended the 95/98/ME family. Organizations that were already on NT4 or 2000, didn't have that much of an issue with XP, because XP could generally use the same drivers as Windows 2000, and run the same applications.
But for home users, it was a huge transition, requiring newer and faster hardware, and with lots of compatibility problems with games and such.

So really it's the same story all over again everytime.
 
Scali2 said:
So really it's the same story all over again everytime.
Click to expand...

And it amazes me that no matter how many of us "oldheads" post this FACT, people still see fit to complain, compare, and demand salvation from Microsoft. Someone just posted earlier that Windows XP SP3 will be supported until at least 2012. I mean seriously, if you can't buy a new PC by then, computers is not something you should get into. Buy a TV and an xbox.

Businesses will use XP just as businesses still use 2000, just as businesses still use Win95. They'll transition into Vista when they are good and ready, and Dell has amazing volume discounts with them. I work IT at a major Hospital/University in PA and we aren't moving from WinXP anytime soon.
 
Techno Pride said:
In other news, Vista fans dumped their old still-working 10yr old cars, CRTs, refrigerators, airconditioners etc and bought new ones to prove that they are dead serious about keeping up with the times.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I do that all the time. So does 99% of america. Things get more effecient and better as time goes on.

Geez. You know what? Your 20 year old bike works too, but you dumped it for a car. What's wrong with you?
 
XP to die, I can see it happening with the iron fist of MS behind. However, as someone said, there are corporations that cannot transition as quickly or want to due to legacy hardware/software that only works in XP or for that matter win2k.
 
I couldn't agree more. I work at a IT help desk and all my co-workers complain about how "slow" Vista is when it runs just fine on my 4 yr old laptop and it gets destroyed by pretty much anyone's system on this website. The security is very good and I actually like the UI changes. The search bar is very handy and I love being able to control the volume for different applications..

While I don't think they should stop selling XP, Vista is better than what most give credit for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top