It just won’t die: Windows XP gets another six months

For tech wizards and n00bs alike. Questions, answers, or just general hoo-haa.

Moderator: Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
SpeedFreak
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Falls Church, Virginia

It just won’t die: Windows XP gets another six months

#1 Post by SpeedFreak »

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39594/140/

YES! XP stays alittle longer. It looks like ill be jumping on a Lenovo and getting it downgraded to XP by x-mas if i can afford it :D yay
Redmond (WA) – Microsoft has stepped up its effort to promote its Vista operating system, but Windows XP just isn’t going away. The company reportedly extended the OEM downgrade timeline once again: As of now, system builders can still offer Windows XP downgrades to their customers and will be able to do so until Vista’s second birthday.

Microsoft’s deadline for allowing OEMs to sell PCs with systems that are “downgraded” from Windows Vista to XP is still a moving target. Initially planned to expire on June 30 of this year, Microsoft at first granted an extension to July 31. However, OEMs are still selling the downgrade option (often for a premium) and, according to new reports, the deadline apparently has been officially extended for six more months to January 31, 2009. The information is based on one leaked email sent to an OEM.

The decision indicates that there is still substantial demand for Windows XP and demand for Vista and its features may not be quite as convincing as the Microsoft usually claims. However, it also raises questions about the firm’s recently launched $300 million Windows advertising campaign that is designed to push Vista sales and there are certainly reasons to believe that a user who now purchases a Windows XP PC is unlikely to ever upgrade to Windows Vista: Windows 7 is expected to arrive in early H2 2009.

As before, the XP downgrade is available from some OEMs with the purchase a PC with Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate.

Recent market data showed that more than one third of new PC buyers choose to downgrade their Vista installations to Windows XP. Another research revealed that enterprise users, one of Microsoft's key markets, are even less inclined to dump XP for the newer operating system.
~Alex
My Explorer 4.0L V6 OHV 150HP, 220ft/lb, 5000lb 0-60-15 seconds 1/4 mile-N/A 14.3 MPG
Image

User avatar
Masterofdisaster
Apprentice
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:08 pm
Location: Haha, I see you.....
Contact:

#2 Post by Masterofdisaster »

Vista should burn in hell for slowing down all gaming computers.
Image
There is no reason as to why there is just to do and die. Remember that saying.

User avatar
Neybulot
New Citizen
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:29 am
Location: In the mysterious land of Nowheresville
Contact:

#3 Post by Neybulot »

minigunmike wrote:Vista should burn in hell for slowing down all gaming computers.
Agreed. I can see why people like it...But there are still newer computers out there that run better with XP than Vista.
Suck on that, Cable!
ImageImage

User avatar
WiseDuck
Traveler
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Sweden

#4 Post by WiseDuck »

Ignorance is bliss, or so I've heard.

Vistas gaming performance is equal to XP. Period. Benchmarks and tests inside games don't lie. Vista shouldn't burn in hell, haters should.

User avatar
SpeedFreak
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Falls Church, Virginia

#5 Post by SpeedFreak »

i run older PC's and usually steal ram from one PC to put in others so this is good for me. since my next laptop is going to only have 1 GB of ram since lenovo standerd gives you only 1 GB
~Alex
My Explorer 4.0L V6 OHV 150HP, 220ft/lb, 5000lb 0-60-15 seconds 1/4 mile-N/A 14.3 MPG
Image

Ashpool
Templar Master
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:55 am

#6 Post by Ashpool »

WiseDuck wrote:Ignorance is bliss, or so I've heard.

Vistas gaming performance is equal to XP. Period. Benchmarks and tests inside games don't lie. Vista shouldn't burn in hell, haters should.
If you could show a source I'd be happy to see it, but as it is I have seen my dad's laptop, (dual-core 2.4GHz, 3GB RAM, 256MB Video card) get far worse peformance playing games than my cheaply built desktop of lesser specs(dual-core 2.0GHz, 2GB RAM, 512MB Video Card).
Fastchapter wrote:...now the kitchen smells like summer rain and liquid poo.

User avatar
Neybulot
New Citizen
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:29 am
Location: In the mysterious land of Nowheresville
Contact:

#7 Post by Neybulot »

WiseDuck wrote:Vistas gaming performance is equal to XP. Period. Benchmarks and tests inside games don't lie. Vista shouldn't burn in hell, haters should.
The problem is, those test vary depending on the specs. For example, single core processors that are fast enough to run Vista are better off running XP. There's better performance on XP with it.
Suck on that, Cable!
ImageImage

User avatar
SpeedFreak
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Falls Church, Virginia

#8 Post by SpeedFreak »

Vista...its buggy still...it does not like older items (OMG its basicly all i run) and i have used it a few times...i dont like how it works...I run older computers...have LOADS of older parts...im stuck with XP forever. I may jump over to a mac next just because I can have XP on it (yes i have a copy of XP pro with a enterprise license) and a reletivly saver OS (OS X) preinstalled too. And personally...i like the look of a mac. I love the size...and for the specs...the price is fine too...atleast compared to lenovo's SL series...they are priced about the same for about the same specs...the only difference is one comes with OSX and can have XP on it and one comes with Vista Buissness which can have XP on it.
~Alex
My Explorer 4.0L V6 OHV 150HP, 220ft/lb, 5000lb 0-60-15 seconds 1/4 mile-N/A 14.3 MPG
Image

User avatar
GordonFreeman
Traveler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: Memory Address &A41H

#9 Post by GordonFreeman »

And if you would ever consider such insanity, there's always Linux running Wine.

It's the methadone of the Windows addict.

User avatar
SpeedFreak
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Falls Church, Virginia

#10 Post by SpeedFreak »

GordonFreeman wrote:And if you would ever consider such insanity, there's always Linux running Wine.

It's the methadone of the Windows addict.
I did that for about 6 months...other then some of the apps i use not being supported when i used wine...it worked. My friend (who i got to use linux...then he learned more then me...) got wine to work with itunes 7 but it was not the best working version...i needed itunes for my iPod Touch...untill i found a new way of syncing it about a week ago...winamp :P and yea i know there are ways to sync an ipod when its jailbroken...but i don't like do have to do extra steps...I will be moving back to linux when Ubuntu 8.10 comes out. 8.04 did not work on my desktop (took recompiling drivers and stuff to get it to run and then i would lose wifi and sound after a few hours of it sitting and with not shutting down a PC does pose a problem with that.)
~Alex
My Explorer 4.0L V6 OHV 150HP, 220ft/lb, 5000lb 0-60-15 seconds 1/4 mile-N/A 14.3 MPG
Image

User avatar
WiseDuck
Traveler
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Sweden

#11 Post by WiseDuck »

Neybulot wrote:
WiseDuck wrote:Vistas gaming performance is equal to XP. Period. Benchmarks and tests inside games don't lie. Vista shouldn't burn in hell, haters should.
The problem is, those test vary depending on the specs. For example, single core processors that are fast enough to run Vista are better off running XP. There's better performance on XP with it.

No [censored]. Why not install DOS? Should boot up in .001 seconds and use just >10mb ram!

It's no secret that new operating systems require more from your computer. XP was the same, the same whining, the same complaints, the same haters. MS only mistake this time was to let people get so damn comfortable with XP that they totally forgot they used to release a new OS every 3rd year or so.

New hardware nowadays costs nothing.

RobbieThe1st
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Behind my computer.
Contact:

#12 Post by RobbieThe1st »

WiseDuck wrote: No [censored]. Why not install DOS? Should boot up in .001 seconds and use just >10mb ram!

It's no secret that new operating systems require more from your computer. XP was the same, the same whining, the same complaints, the same haters. MS only mistake this time was to let people get so damn comfortable with XP that they totally forgot they used to release a new OS every 3rd year or so.

New hardware nowadays costs nothing.
But, why install a new system with negligible benefits? Going from dos to windows 3.1 was a definite improvement(and you even got to use dos too, if you wanted to), then from 3.1 to 95 was a large improvement, giving right-click support and all sorts of other features. 98 had some plug-and-play functionality, and eventually USB support. NT 4.0 didn't have much in the way of media support(gaming really didn't work too well, I tried) and wasn't really a end-user OS. 2000 took the awesome core of NT, and added media/game support, which, compared to ME... Note that, from windows 95 to 2000, the GUI looked almost identical. When XP came along, it was kind of different, and had some backlash because of it, but when you get right down to it, it still acts the same way. You still have the "file, edit, view, ..." menus, the same close, minimize, maximize buttons, and while things look cleaner, and shinier, they still look, and basically act the same.

Vista on the other hand... You still have the close buttons, but no longer do you have the good, old, file menu. Things are just different.

I mean, really, from XP, I can go to a windows 95, 98, NT4.0, or 2000 install and be able to navigate folders in about the same manner. There are more features in later programs, but visually, its about the same.

I figure that users are lazy. They want to use what works, and what they like. If you compare, we haven't really had a GUI change of this magnitude sense the change from windows 3.1 to 95!

3.1: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win311fw
95: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win95
NT 4.0: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winnt40
98se: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win98se
2000: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win2000pro
XP: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winxppro

Vista: http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/gall ... ndows.mspx

Plus, why upgrade when the old os works, does everything you want, and runs faster on the same hardware? Personally, I am going to downgrade my laptop to windows 2000, because it runs much faster, and I don't need the graphical themes, and it should run everything I need.


-RobbieThe1st

FastChapter
The Inkwell Coyote
Posts: 9458
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:28 pm

#13 Post by FastChapter »

WiseDuck wrote: New hardware nowadays costs nothing.
Nothing =/= $1,600 for a custom build.

The Luigiian
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:12 am
Location: Zippy, the Emergency Backup Computer
Contact:

Re:

#14 Post by The Luigiian »

FastChapter wrote:
WiseDuck wrote: New hardware nowadays costs nothing.
Nothing =/= $1,600 for a custom build.

I guess I'm weird. I'm just going to get another $500 or so pre-built laptop when it comes time to get my next computer. Zippy's been reliable and quite useful to me. Plus, I wouldn't even know how to get a custom build, or why I would need one.

The only thing I'm waiting for with Vista is for the company to work out its bugs. I tried using a Vista skin on my computer, and all it did was slow it down, so I removed it. But I figure I'd might as well get the OS if I'm going to buy a brand new computer.

Of course, I might also get an Apple, too, if some of the reports regarding Vista's numerous failures are apt.

User avatar
JUSTANOTHERBOTMAN
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:29 pm

Re: It just won’t die: Windows XP gets another six months

#15 Post by JUSTANOTHERBOTMAN »

I've tried vista and it isn't as horrible as people make it out to be. Seriously, y'all need to chill out.

Post Reply