Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rickk1

Microsoft To Extend Windows XP Sales As Vista Concerns Mount

Recommended Posts

Microsoft To Extend Windows XP Sales As Vista Concerns Mount

The software company said it will make the full version of Windows XP available to PC manufacturers and retailers through June 30, 2008.

 

By Paul McDougall

InformationWeek

September 28, 2007 11:20 AM

 

 

Responding to some customers' lukewarm embrace of Windows Vista, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) said it will extend by several months availability of the operating system's predecessor, Windows XP.

The company said it will make the full version of Windows XP available to PC manufacturers and retailers through June 30, 2008. It will continue to offer a basic edition in emerging markets through June 2010.

 

Microsoft introduced Windows XP in late 2001. The company ordinarily makes operating systems available only for four years after launch date. But delays in producing Windows Vista, which debuted in January, forced Microsoft to continue selling Windows XP longer than planned.

 

In recent months, Microsoft had pegged Windows XP's official expiration date at Jan. 30. That will fall by the wayside in favor of the new dates, Microsoft said Thursday.

 

Microsoft's official explanation for the move is that too many customers have yet to complete the transition from Windows XP to Windows Vista. "There are some customers who need a little more time to make the switch," said Mike Nash, Microsoft's Windows product manager, in a statement posted on the company's Web site.

 

While that may be, a number of signs have emerged in recent months that Windows Vista's problems go beyond timing. A survey conducted earlier this year by InformationWeek showed that an astonishing 30% of businesses have no plans to purchase Windows Vista. It's an indication that many corporate software buyers may take a long look at Linux, the Mac OS, or some other alternative to Vista once Windows XP is no longer available.

 

Among other things, software buyers have railed against Windows Vista's price, lack of compatibility with existing software, and system requirements that exceed the capabilities of PCs more than a couple of years old.

 

PC makers have responded to such concerns by continuing to push Windows XP, despite the millions of dollars that their partner in Redmond has spent promoting Vista. Dell (Dell), Lenovo, and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HP) have in recent weeks gone as far as offering customers discs that effectively let them "downgrade" their Windows Vista systems to Windows XP.

 

Despite such troubling signals from the market, Nash insists that Microsoft doesn't believe Windows Vista is destined to become the tech industry's version of the Ford Edsel.

Edited by rickk1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I think microsoft have screwed up BIG TIME on this one. if you ask me they should continue to sell WinXP until the problems with vista have been ironed out. They say that some consumers are not ready to switch to windows vista and yet people never will if the problems are not fixed. Heck some things are by design, like for instance windows vista can only be installed on an NTFS file system which isn't much choice for users. :angry: I had this rescue disc that came with my antivirus software which is a floppy disc that boots up and runs a virus scan on your hard disks, but I don't think it's compatible with the NTFS file system.

 

According to the help file it isn't compatible with the NTFS file system IIRC. :angry::angry:

 

The way I see it if M$ don't fix all those problems with vista then it will be the technology industry's version of the concord.

Edited by SimonSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, think Microsoft screwed up by trying to replace XP with Vista. To me, Vista is and always will be another Windows-Me. I had Vista for 3-4 months and absolutely hated it so I went back to XP-Pro.

 

I have clients and friends that asked me several months ago which operating system I recommended and my choice at that time and at this time is still Windows XP. I continue to hear praise from my clients for making a wise choice since they've experienced Vista on a limited basis through some of their friends and they've told me that Vista really does suk!!

 

Personally speaking, I really don't understand why Microsoft has to continue to build a new operating system for reasons other than money. MS already makes billions of dollars on their other software.

 

XP is here to stay with me. If MS does not make major changes to Vista to make it more user and tech friendly, my next computer will definitely be a Mac. Alot of my friends feel the same way as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they cant release a single service pack without taking a few years, how can they create a functioning os in five years and use an oriinal idea without robbing ideas from other os's :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I kicked XP to the curb in favor of Vista for my dual boot system. I have no complaints of Vista. I personally think it's a huge improvement over XP. Granted I do have the power to run Vista, system gets a 5.6 user index rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two recent articles on WinXP and Vista:

http://www.news.com/Microsoft-extends-Wind..._3-6210524.html

http://www.informationweek.com/windows/sho...cleID=202102847

 

My thoughts on Vista not being 'embraced', is that there are too many versions. :hammer:

 

Most people elect to go with the least expensive. I've never used Vista Home Basic , but I can tell you right now that it isn't a step up from XP. It doesn't even look like a step up from 98 to me...oh, a different and new design, but it doesn't much more than eye candy.

People need to look at what they want in an an OS and buy what they need.

 

Drivers, Sound/Video cards, wireless connections, etc, .. are another problem. I don't think all the blame belongs with MS.

Which manufacturer isn't keeping up with what version of Vista? :huh:

 

Check before leaping. Google is a good source to see if programs, drivers, Internet connections or special tweaks will work with your version. Don't sit there and complain. Do some research on your own beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what drivers/programs may work with vista may I ask? Yeah I did a google when I was thinking of upgrading to vista and I found loads of reports on much hardware not working with vista and IMMIDTATELY changed my mind. What is there to do but go back to WinXP/don't upgrade to vista when you find out that nothing you have works with Vista? If Microsoft don't make vista backward compatible with most of the software that people already running WinXP have then it is their fault. There are people that just don't want to spend that much time and more importantly money to upgrade their computers to vista compatible.

 

And rickk1 I agree with you on switching to another OS but I think you should consider other operating systems besides OS 10 such as linux. Granted a macintosh does just work (most of the time anyway) from what I read and I guess that's logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Microsoft don't make vista backward compatible with most of the software that people already running WinXP have then it is their fault.

Since when? It is the responsibility of the program writers to make their programs work with the OS, not the other way around. Same goes with drivers, since when has it been Microsoft's responsibiliy to write drivers for hardware? If you have a program that doesn't work with Vista, get on the developers for the program to upadte it to work with Vista.

 

There are people that just don't want to spend that much time and more importantly money to upgrade their computers to vista compatible.

Most of the people that are in that situation are the Dell/HP buyers that use the same computer for 4-5 years, and are the last to go out and buy just Vista. For them if and when the time comes the run to the nearest Best Buy, whatever and buy a new computer with Vista already pre-installed.

 

Drivers, Sound/Video cards, wireless connections, etc, .. are another problem. I don't think all the blame belongs with MS.

Which manufacturer isn't keeping up with what version of Vista?

Actually Jacee I ahve yet to see any driver that was only for a specific version of Vista, there is only one driver for whatever the hardware is regardless of Vista version. The only differences between the versions is the features that get installed, everything else at the core is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you can't always expect a driver for an operating system to be out as soon as the OS is released, so what do you do if you have devices that don't have those drivers out yet? I have a USB vid capture card with drivers meant for WinME and it worked fine as soon as I installed it with my XP computer. Some devices are so old that support for them has been discontinued by the manufacturer and no new drivers are released for them.

 

As for programs, as I said above some of the problems are by design like having to use NTFS for vista, and also as I previously stated, I have a antivirus rescue disc which only works with a FAT file system.

 

Hardware-there have been issues with vista working with hardware that is only 2 years old! I've heard of cases where people have had to upgrade hardware which isn't that old just to get vista to work full stop!

 

Again, more money need spent.

 

Just did a google and found these vids on youtube

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVJfuFfpbIU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuGYMmdC08w

 

Good lord! :blink:

Edited by SimonSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for programs, as I said above some of the problems are by design like having to use NTFS

I have yet to come across a program that cared what the file system was (short of the operating system itself).

 

I have a antivirus rescue disc which only works with a FAT file system.

This is 2007, not 1990. Time for either a new program or for the develpoer of said program to get with the times.

 

As for that first video, again this is 2007; there probably hasn't been a computer shipped in the last several years that didn't come with a dvd-rom in it. If all you have is a cd-rom, then it is probably time for a new computer not just a new dvd-rom. As for the rest of the video; using a command prompt to format for one, you do all that when you run the install. Won't even bother discussing the rest of it.

 

As for the second video, the same applies. It is somewhat of a given that when you install a new OS (or reformat/re-install) that you will have to install any and all programs that were installed on the previous install.

 

Hardware-there have been issues with vista working with hardware that is only 2 years old! I've heard of cases where people have had to upgrade hardware which isn't that old just to get vista to work full stop!

And again that is not Microsoft's problem, but a problem with the hardware manufacturer either unable or unwilling to support their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what? :lol:

 

Vista works, and works pretty well.

 

It is not Microsofts obligation to create drivers for vendors hardware. It is the hardware manufacturers task to do that and then submit them to MS for testing and approval. If they had done that before the final release then Vista would have included more drivers.

 

The smae pretty much goes for software. It is not Microsofts obligation to make the millions of software applications work with a new OS, especially one that finally does away with everything having root/administrator privileges. It is the software creators job to make their software work with the operating system. Not the other way around.

 

The comments about the pudgy file system (ie: FAT32) OMG please, please people dump that horrible file system once and for all, welcome to the 21st century. ;) Microsoft stopped using it as the default file system in late 1999 with the release of Windows 2000. They were very smart to dump it, you would be too :P

 

As much as I am not a fan of Microsoft, all of complaints I see in this thread have very little to do with Microsoft, and more to do with hardware and software vendors slow to adapt to a new OS. You can go back in time, and find the same type posts about just about every release of Windows.

 

Where the biggest problem lies is in fact "users" and their inability to adapt to new ways of doing things. Vista is a complete change in kernel, security, and interface. It is not a difficult thing to adapt.

 

Personally I think the largest drawback to Vista are the ridiculous pricing schemes, and the confusion they create with so many different versions.

 

The simple fact is 99% of the people out there need nothing more then the home basic version. If they want the added multimedia features and lame Aero interface then they should save money and avoid the "Ultimate" version and just buy the Home Premium version.

 

The things that are included in Ultimate that are not in Home Premium simply wouldn't be missed by the average person, and to be honest, most don't even know what they are, or what the differences are.

 

Don't pay for things you won't use, don't pay for things you have no idea about.

 

Then of course there is the upgrade version vs the full version. Wake up folks they are identical in what they contain. The difference is one costs double what the other does, and you have to install the upgrade twice to make it fully functional. :P

 

In short, Vista is OK, it is people that get really whacked when it comes to using new operating systems. Thats what happens when a company waits 6 years to create a new OS. People get so set in their ways of doing things (creatures of habit) that they just frown on "change". Or say things don't work, because they don't know how to make them work.

 

So they wait, and wait, and wait until they themselves have fallen behind the times like thee old decrepit OS that they have used for far too many years.

 

What it comes down to is change. Change for the better. Whether or not people will change is a personal decision they themselves make. ;)

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for that first video, again this is 2007; there probably hasn't been a computer shipped in the last several years that didn't come with a dvd-rom in it. If all you have is a cd-rom, then it is probably time for a new computer not just a new dvd-rom. As for the rest of the video; using a command prompt to format for one, you do all that when you run the install. Won't even bother discussing the rest of it.

But what about that second vid link? That guy had to change his MOBO and Graphics card to get vista to work. 2 Yrs isn't that old. That guy is a retired microsoft systems engineer so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. And BTW probably better to convert to NTFS using windows XP than during a Windows Vista install.

 

 

I DO use NTFS for all but one of my drives, and that one that still uses FAT32 is one which contains important files which the factory reset disc supplied with my computer uses. Dunno why it isn't NTFS. :shrug: My PC manufacturer must have formatted it with that file system and I daren't mess with it.

 

And hardware vendors probably are working on drivers for vista, what I have read is that NVIDIA were furiously working on a stable driver for the 8800 which was due out by January 30th but there was still no SLI support and they delayed the N80 driver even longer! Not sure if it's out yet but I sure hope so.

 

 

I would leave vista a year or so, as I have heard of more and more problems with it, and I don't want to spend loads of money to get vista to work with my computer. I have heard and read about problems with backward compatibility that just can't be fixed I'd post links but I can't be bothered going through pages of google search results. :angry: Basically with vista it seems like it's buy new hardware, update drivers, and buy new programs or well... you're done. :surrender:

 

I'm gonna go search some more.

Edited by SimonSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how many people do you know that would recommend sticking a magnet inside a computer? He is also using the totally un-needed audio cable from the cd/dvd drive, seems he doesn't know what a SATA cable is just refers to it as "the cable that new hard drives use".

 

That and I don't even want to know how old the motherboard he replaced was, it had an AGP slot (looks like AGP 2 at most, if not older) and was using a PCI video card. Oh and with motherboards/ram where thety are now, why would he get a board that uses DDR PC3200, instead of a DDR2 board. That and he really doesn't know his hardware. Read through the comments long enough and you will find this,

 

Just because my box looks old, doesn't mean I haven't kept it up. I have a Gigabyte ga 85rx board, a Riva TNT Vid card, 1 g ram, and both HDs are WD ATA 133 (ide) drives.

The best I can find on that motherboard is a couple of forum archives from 2002, and he keeps saying over and over again that his computer was "top of the line" 2 years ago. Something just doesn't compute there.

 

Sorry but the guy in those videos suffers from a major case of PEBKAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aero for xp http://en.softonic.com/search/aero-win-xp

 

just think, it will look like vista without all the drm:lol:

 

The DRM-Yet more problems with vista.

 

 

I thought the hardware in that computer looked old! But I thought that was my mistake and I didn't think the magnet in that screwdriver was powerful enough to do anything to the HDD. Either way I HAVE read stuff about it not working with recent hardware ACTUALLY from 2 yrs ago and drivers for new hardware are being delayed! GEEZ! That makes me worry what type of people microsoft are employing.

 

Not that I would care if it's a driver for my Mp3 player, Cell Phone/Mobile Phone Camcorder or something like that, I could wait for those but if it were something like my LAN Driver which was delayed? I can't say I would be too happy about that.

 

And what if the new drivers don't work like the older ones? What if you have problems because of the new drivers? What if the new drivers aren't as stable? Or in the same case as the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 what if feature(s) don't work with the new drivers? The 8800 driver for vista had no SLI support and I'm not sure if that problem was fixed or not but could someone please post if that driver has SLI support yet? I hope it has.

 

 

If you ask me vista is something COMPLETELY different to the other operating systems microsoft have made, if you ask me it's a MAJOR leap in terms of technology I'd say maybe even on a scale of Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, and maybe the changes are too much too soon.

 

 

Microsoft didn't have the consideration to put any backward compatibility into vista as they did with Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 98, and I'm not too sure how much backward compatibility Windows 95 for Windows 3.1 and DOS programs it had, but from what I read, back then people had to buy allot of new software to work with Windows 95, and that seems to be the same problem with Windows Vista. You'd think that MS would learn from their mistakes and not make the same mistakes with Windows Vista.

Edited by SimonSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And rickk1 I agree with you on switching to another OS but I think you should consider other operating systems besides OS 10 such as linux.

I've used Linux on other computers and was not real fond of it. Vista would not have been so bad if Microsoft had not readjusted the way folders are located in windows explorer and if Microsoft had merely added some features instead of changing the way commands are located and adjusted.

 

Example being display properties on desktop. Xp's display properties let the user adjust more than just the fonts. And finding those other display tabs in Vista made it very user unfriendly, in my opinion. Backward compatible with XP would have been nice too.

 

Power...Hmmm...Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Compaq, HP, Acer, etc...they were all into the power scheme or rather scam. Think about it. For instance, my computer has 4gb of ram and is maxed out. When Vista was initially installed on my system, only 3gb of the 4gb was being shown. Everyone claims that video cards hog the extra 1gb of ram but that is not true. IF I remove one of my ram chips and reduce my total ram from 4gb to 3gb, then why does my system show I still have 3gb of memory? If the video card did hog extra memory, then why doesn't the 3gb system show 2gb instead? Money..it all boils down to money.

 

My system has more than enough memory to run Vista but fact is, Vista suks! Xp was, still is, and always will be a million times more user-friendly than vista. AND XP is not the memory hog or power hungry child that vista is.

 

Like I said earlier, Vista is just another Win-Me. Some people like it but the majority of people hate it and will never buy it let alone use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power...Hmmm...Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Compaq, HP, Acer, etc...they were all into the power scheme or rather scam. Think about it. For instance, my computer has 4gb of ram and is maxed out. When Vista was initially installed on my system, only 3gb of the 4gb was being shown. Everyone claims that video cards hog the extra 1gb of ram but that is not true. IF I remove one of my ram chips and reduce my total ram from 4gb to 3gb, then why does my system show I still have 3gb of memory? If the video card did hog extra memory, then why doesn't the 3gb system show 2gb instead? Money..it all boils down to money.

Actually, the reason for that is the limitation of 32bit operating system. If you had the 64bit version, it would show the entire 4 gb. You may not necessarily be able to use the entire 4 gig if all the other software is 32 bit software. This isn't anything about money, but the limitation of using 32 bit OS.

 

On-board video does use system memory, but I haven't heard of it using an entire gig of memory. A discrete graphics card has it's own memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Power...Hmmm...Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Compaq, HP, Acer, etc...they were all into the power scheme or rather scam. Think about it. For instance, my computer has 4gb of ram and is maxed out. When Vista was initially installed on my system, only 3gb of the 4gb was being shown. Everyone claims that video cards hog the extra 1gb of ram but that is not true. IF I remove one of my ram chips and reduce my total ram from 4gb to 3gb, then why does my system show I still have 3gb of memory? If the video card did hog extra memory, then why doesn't the 3gb system show 2gb instead? Money..it all boils down to money.

 

 

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the manufacturers are going to offer computers with 4gb as max, then those computers ought to be able to show they're using the entire 4gb of memory...not 2 or 3gb. I still say it is about money. Since the 32bit operating system is limited to 4gb max, then why won't it say it is using the entire 4gb? Someone is lying again. I still say it is all about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read the whole article on that link did you.

 

To be perfectly clear, this isn't a Windows problem-- it's an x86 hardware problem. The memory hole is quite literally invisible to the CPU, no matter what 32-bit operating system you choose.

So how is it that it is all about money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read the whole article on that link did you.

So how is it that it is all about money?

 

I have just read something about that problem while looking up info about fixing the RAM in my computer, and if you have a 32-bit OS it won't see the full 4GB but if you have a 64-bit OS it will. If that's the case then why don't microsoft make vista a 64-bit OS as standard? And also for the length of time it's sold WinXP should be made a 64-bit OS, right now you have to pay more for the 64-bit version of WinXP I think. :angry:

 

 

WHAT A TOTAL RIP OFF!!!!! :angry::angry::angry::cr@sh: <-----Computer running vista home premium.

 

And not to mention what a total waste of progress in computer technology.

Edited by SimonSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding, if you buy the retail version, it includes both 32 and 64 bit versions. Or is that only for the Ultimate version?

 

Most 32 bit software works great on 64 bit OS. However, 32 bit drivers typically don't work with a 64 bit OS. That is where the issue lies. If companies don't write 64 bit drivers for their hardware, the people who already have that hardware won't use the 64 bit OS. I guess you could say that is a case of money, since a company wouldn't think it would be worth-while to make 64 bit drivers since no one uses a 64 bit OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is with the manufactures of computers...

They are selling Vista pre-installed on their new machines, and haven't got a clue as to how their drivers, sound cards, mother boards, etc.. work with it!

 

Who tests these machines? Why do they offer (and sell) their machines with only the minimum requirements? (dollars/money) Why do they include Symantec/Norton on these machines? ....only to find out that it kills quite a few necessary executables?

 

It's no wonder that the vast majority of new consumers are hating Vista! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...