bit-tech.net

Petition launched to save XP

Petition launched to save XP

A sight that you won't be seeing after June 2008 if Microsoft has its way.

Techie website InfoWorld has announced a petition aimed at convincing Microsoft to delay the already-delayed-by-six-months planned termination of Windows XP, and they're looking for signers.

You may remember that when Dell started pre-installing Vista on all their new home PCs the uproar from consumers was enough to convince the box builder to offer a choice of Vista or XP, at least on the most popular models in their range. InfoWorld is hoping to embrace and extend that success by taking on the beast itself: Microsoft.

Microsoft is due to end shipment of Windows XP in both retail and OEM formats on the 30th of June, despite strong popular demand for the previous-generation OS. After this time, system builders will be given until December 31st to shift remaining stocks of Windows XP. The reason is clear: the company is extremely keen to get people shifted onto its next-gen OS, Windows Vista.

InfoWorld believes that XP still has a place in the market, and I have to agree. Having used both Vista and XP on the same box, XP certainly feels nippier and has fewer surprises lurking behind shadowy corners. While an upgrade would obviously make Vista just as responsive as XP is, it's a fact that many of the bottom-end PCs sold by retailers such as Dell and HP just don't have the grunt to make Vista a viable option without adding additional memory and bumping the price away from the headline-grabbing loss-leader offers we see so often.

InfoWorld's aim is laudable, but perhaps a trifle optimistic: it's attempting to get Microsoft to agree to an indefinite extension to XP's shelf-life. In the site's own words, “Not for another six months or a year but indefinitely.

As much as I'd like to see XP remain an option, especially at the budget end of the market, I think that Microsoft has too much riding on the success of Vista to allow it to happen. Still, with enough signatures anything is possible.

Tempted to sign, or should all the XP holdouts switch to something more suited to less powerful computers? Give us your thoughts over in the forums.

92 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
will. 15th January 2008, 13:29 Quote
I seem to be one of the few who had nothing but trouble with XP and upon the switch to Vista found it all plain sailing. So... I say kill it! Kill it with sticks!
cjoyce1980 15th January 2008, 13:30 Quote
unless vista with SP1 can prove to be just as good as XP with SP3, then XP should stay just a little longer
djDEATH 15th January 2008, 13:36 Quote
lol, yup, you do seem to be the only one.

I myself had vista installed on my system from the day i bought it. Being primarily a gaming machine, i found the extra 5-10% or so FPS i was getting under XP worth sticking with it. For general productivity, and ease of use, i really like Vista's approach. Integrated search and the fact that window composition and overall display is using my graphics card more is making the expenditure of a high end GPU all the more worthwhile, but as mentioned above:

"many of the bottom-end PCs sold by retailers such as Dell and HP just don't have the grunt to make Vista a viable option without adding additional memory and bumping the price away from the headline-grabbing loss-leader offers we see so often."

which is why this machine will remain XP only for now, and Vista wil have to wait until my new machine is built towards the end of the year.
chrisb2e9 15th January 2008, 13:37 Quote
I know that I wil go vista at some point, but that wont happen till I am forced to for some reason. Xp works as it is, I dont see a reason to kill it just yet. Some people simply cant afford a pc that will run vista.
Mother-Goose 15th January 2008, 13:48 Quote
it should have been killed off years ago, Vista is much better imo. And once it's the norm, there will be loads more stuff for it as well :D
p3n 15th January 2008, 13:50 Quote
Richard branson should buy 5 million copies of xp then sell em off for double!
FIBRE+ 15th January 2008, 13:52 Quote
I've never had any issues with it, and i'm quite happy to stick with it for a while longer.

I can't see *that* many educational establishments or businesses doing the switch to Vista any time soon, most will only upgrade OS when included with new machines (well that's basically how it worked in my old IT job). It's just easier to keep everything the same, you don't want multiple operatating systems etc, especially if you have hundreds of machines to look after.

Well unless you have big budgets and a decent size IT department.
Gordy 15th January 2008, 13:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother-Goose
it should have been killed off years ago, Vista is much better imo. And once it's the norm, there will be loads more stuff for it as well :D

Vista is plainly terrible. I have to troubleshoot problems on windows machines from 95-vista and vista is by far and wide the worst of the lot. Its networking setup is a utter joke as is its speed. I've yet to see a single good reason why xp is worse than vista.
steveo_mcg 15th January 2008, 13:55 Quote
They are taking it off sale, not stopping support. If you really like XP put your money where your mouth is and buy a full retail version then you can keep using till the next version of windows comes out where you can start complaining about its huge over head. Personally i'll stick with my oem xp for my gaming rig until it comes round to upgrades then get an oem Vista. I just can't seem to build up and feelings for windows one way or the other, its just a place to launch my games from.
AlexB 15th January 2008, 14:20 Quote
Kill it - Vista is more clunky, but does more, and seems more stable. Been using it (Ultimate 64) since it's first release, and its good as gold.
fargo 15th January 2008, 14:32 Quote
xp with sp3 will do just fine for me why go to the expense of vista and its problems when in a couple
of yrs a new os will likely be on the market and vista will be nothing but a distant memory.
wolff000 15th January 2008, 14:33 Quote
They can petition all they like but MS is going to drop it. You could collect billions of signatures and it wouldn't make a difference. They have spent to much money on Vista to keep selling XP. I personally prefer XP and will continue to use it for quite a few years. I am not worried about upgrading since I no loonger have time to game anymore anyway. I just use my 360 for the rare times I have an extra hour. Vista might hit my new box when I build it at the end of this year. Until then it remains on the test box that can only run it with all the fancy gui stuff turned off.
sandys 15th January 2008, 14:37 Quote
kill off XP and all 32 bit versions of Vista, lets look to the future eh!
Drexial 15th January 2008, 14:39 Quote
The one problem i find with Vista isn't in its reliability, it's in its layout. I know that 13 year ago when 95 came out the concept of going to start to shut down was confusing.... *Bangs head against wall* But I'm fairly certain that it has been accepted as the norm now. So they go and change that. for the display before, I right clicked and went to Properties... what was so hard about that? do there really need to be 15 sub menus now when I do that? they took something simple that everyone had grown accustomed to and changed it.

I think i figured out why. Cause when the idea for the new OS started, right around the time XP was released, these were complaints from ME previous that were posted. But since then there is an XP machine in just about every home now, so people have grown accustomed to the layout from before and now they change it based on feedback from 6 years ago and older.
jswilson64 15th January 2008, 14:58 Quote
If they don't want to make any more money selling XP, why not release the source code?
Firehed 15th January 2008, 14:59 Quote
It definitely won't be extended indefinitely, and for good reason. All things considered, I think June '08 is a reasonable timeframe. While I don't really like Vista a whole lot, I still generally prefer it to XP. There are some issues that need to be sorted out, but that's true of XP too. Its the usability improvements (all of the stuff 'stolen' from OS X, frankly) that make me prefer it - and while people might think that the little wooshing glow behind the address bar in Explorer is useless eye candy, actual designers will tell you it's a big improvement on following interface guidelines so that the user knows the program hasn't locked up and is just working really slowly when everything would have otherwise appeared to be stopped.

But people really should go spend the $70 or so on 4GB of RAM. Not that it needs it (omg it uses more RAM! Well I should hope so, that's why I got more), but because it's so damn cheap right now that there's no reason not to do it.
sub routine 15th January 2008, 15:00 Quote
Petition should be for Microsoft to realease an o/s thats worth it`s money from day 1.

Fact is nearly the entire population of the world will be run by M/ S at some point in the future, not the most encouraging idea for the rest of all humanity but thats the way it is.
I have Vista and it`s a bit crashy crashy, it shouldn`t be hit and miss when you buy a product and if you pay full value for it you shouldn`t be bug testing the bloody thing for the next 2 years to get it to gold disc quality. I like the idea of vista and the visual frippery that makes it up.

So should Xp be discontinued? Yes the sooner it`s stopped and more and more people start getting used as guinea pigs the sooner my disc will be worth the money I paid for it.
naokaji 15th January 2008, 15:02 Quote
sure vista does have issues, like too many sku's, i mean seriously, what did they smoke when they created so many versions of it?
and yep, some companies did a really bad job with the drivers (creative to just name one here).
but in the end vista is the future, xp is like agp, it should die, but prolly wont.
FuzzyOne 15th January 2008, 15:13 Quote
I used vista for all of 3 weeks, back with XP and happy as a pig in ****
will. 15th January 2008, 15:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyOne
I used vista for all of 3 weeks, back with XP and happy as a pig in ****

A big pile of steaming **** :D
TTmodder 15th January 2008, 15:38 Quote
Bad Bad microsoft. Would just cause the amount of windows xp being pirated to be bigger in the long run.
adamc 15th January 2008, 16:58 Quote
asides from trifling problems with itunes and quicktime, my vista x64 is running perfectly and was a brilliant upgrade over XP!
slugbug 15th January 2008, 17:16 Quote
Vista reminds me a lot of Windows ME. Either it works great for you or it doesn't.
keir 15th January 2008, 17:46 Quote
Death to xp
sui_winbolo 15th January 2008, 18:20 Quote
I prefer Vista over XP, it's a nice change to me over XP. It is rather clunky, but so was XP when it first came out. If you have a decent rig, Vista is going to be happy. Nothing much to worry about it being more bloated than XP.

Whether you like it or not, Vista is here to stay. It's just going to become more standardized just like XP has.
Breach 15th January 2008, 19:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother-Goose
it should have been killed off years ago, Vista is much better imo. And once it's the norm, there will be loads more stuff for it as well :D

I couldn't disagree more. Who would want to "upgrade" to something that is slower and has virtually no noticeable changes aside a pretty interface and DX10? If the world liked Vista OEMs would not have gone back to offering XP after going Vista only at first. All the cool stuff that was supposed to make Vista awesome (WinFS for example) was scrapped, and in the end all you get is a sludgy and more annoying XP. Look at any Vista optimization guide, they all basically turn Vista into XP again...

Face it MS, you released something that sucks and no one wants. Stop trying to be Google and Apple, and make an OS that is actually revolutionary.
impar 15th January 2008, 19:35 Quote
Greetings!

Have Vista installed since September, used it some in September and October, used it once in November and another time in December and havent used it at all in 2008.
Classify it as unreliable and a waste of money.
MrWillyWonka 15th January 2008, 20:05 Quote
Tbh it poses problems for some system builds. If I have a few old pieces that I want to bung together and want to legally run Windows, I'm hardly going to run Vista on a 1GHz Athlon and 256MB RAM and XP would be the best option. If it's not available then the only easy choice is to pirate it. Bad move.

For everyone who says kill XP, Vista is best. Vista is not the best choice for all machines.
Blademrk 15th January 2008, 21:19 Quote
I like Vista, but as a gamer, I want my games to work with as little fuss as possible - I currently use a dual boot system and if I can't get a game to work in Vista easily I'll use XP to run it.

Couldn't get Titan Quest to work a few weeks back due to a missing .dll file. That I think is the major problem with Vista and Joe public, a game (especially one as recent as Titan Quest) should work out of the box without having to source files which were in DX9 and should still be in DX10 but has been removed by MS.
BioSniper 15th January 2008, 21:40 Quote
I used to be of the mind set that I wanted to keep XP but having stuck with Vista and actually forced myself to live with it and get used to it I must say that I can't be happier to see XP go.

Those who want it to stay alive either use old software or don't have a modern enough system to cope with Vista.
The same happened when XP came out, people cried and said "but XP am work slower on my machinezors", but a year or so later most people upgraded and had no issues with speed and better software replaced the old software and life was good.
It's once again at that transition period.

Those who love XP will stick with it for a long time and fair enough, why buy a new OS if you don't NEED it. Those who buy new systems will have enough power for Vista and will probably either install it themselves, install an old XP that they already have if they want XP that much, or have Vista pre-installed and wont know the difference anyway.

I just wish people would stop fearing progression
Silver Shamrock 15th January 2008, 22:21 Quote
*
CardJoe 15th January 2008, 22:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
Joe public

I hate that expression.
kempez 15th January 2008, 23:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by slugbug
Vista reminds me a lot of Windows ME. Either it works great for you or it doesn't.

Not even close. I mean, come on....ME didn't work for anyone :|:?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BioSniper
I used to be of the mind set that I wanted to keep XP but having stuck with Vista and actually forced myself to live with it and get used to it I must say that I can't be happier to see XP go.

Those who want it to stay alive either use old software or don't have a modern enough system to cope with Vista.
The same happened when XP came out, people cried and said "but XP am work slower on my machinezors", but a year or so later most people upgraded and had no issues with speed and better software replaced the old software and life was good.
It's once again at that transition period.

Those who love XP will stick with it for a long time and fair enough, why buy a new OS if you don't NEED it. Those who buy new systems will have enough power for Vista and will probably either install it themselves, install an old XP that they already have if they want XP that much, or have Vista pre-installed and wont know the difference anyway.

I just wish people would stop fearing progression

QFT, well said

Vista runs great with a high spec machine and 64bit with 4GB RAM is a dream. I've had no more issues with Vista than I had I first had with XP, far less in fact.

Businesses will continue to get support from MS as they have done for previous operating systems but eventually as machine life cycles go through Vista will also be the norm

Let's move on and stop moaning :(
manjowithane 15th January 2008, 23:02 Quote
Will you still be able to carry on requesting xp product keys from Microsoft if you need to activate again?
Delphium 15th January 2008, 23:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kempez
Vista runs great with a high spec machine and 64bit with 4GB RAM is a dream. I've had no more issues with Vista than I had I first had with XP, far less in fact.

QFT, installed since march 2007, yet to have any problems with it, other than some lacking drivers in the early days which are now resolved.


ByeBye XP B)
koola 15th January 2008, 23:29 Quote
I hated vista, so much I jumped ship to Apple although I still bootcamp winxp for uni apps. OS 10.5 is great, love it :D
Phil Rhodes 16th January 2008, 00:33 Quote
Just after the launch of Vista, I wrote a magazine article involving some computer hardware I knew wouldn't work under Vista. Microsoft, when approached for a review copy of XP, declined, saying they needed to promote Vista.

"But it won't work," I said. "I know it won't work. It will definitely not work. It absolutely won't work. No worky."
"Yes it will," they said.

So I went and bought a copy of XP. This is the mentality you're dealing with.
Woodstock 16th January 2008, 08:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jswilson64
If they don't want to make any more money selling XP, why not release the source code?

now i have to go change my pant /offtopic. IMO vista is better then xp but nowhere near as good as a decent linux distro
FR34K 16th January 2008, 08:45 Quote
one thing is for sure...vista won't set foot(figuratively speaking) on any machine I will ever own...or in any house I live in.
Half of it's processes are a waste, and an excuse to sell more hardware that you normally wouldn't need in the first place.

I'm in the boat of converting to unix/linux...it's worth learning a new OS.
All M$ has going for it now anyway is compatibility and popular games, which they pretty much have control over cause they have the money to basically make themselves the standard.

As for holding XP out, they should...at least until they're 100% sure Vista will keep going.
naokaji 16th January 2008, 10:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodstock
now i have to go change my pant /offtopic. IMO vista is better then xp but nowhere near as good as a decent linux distro

nothing against linux, but theres something it lacks, its called games. game developers should start making linux versions of their games.
Woodstock 16th January 2008, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
nothing against linux, but theres something it lacks, its called games. game developers should start making linux versions of their games.

and game developers will only start to develop linux native installers when more people start using linux
Shielder 16th January 2008, 12:04 Quote
Have a look at Phoronix and see what games they use to benchmark Linux systems.

Also, I can use WINE to run some old (but good) games from pre-XP days (ahhh, Win95, the memories).

Anyway, I'm actually going to be using all three OS's on my new system (when I eventually get round to building it), XP, Vista and Linux. I am expecting problems with some older games on Vista (mainly because I'm going to be running Vista x64) so that's why I'm going to buy () XP and Vista for the new system (rather than transfer the old license over).

£143 for two OSs. Ridiculous! (only cos I'm going for OEM versions, I'd hate to see how much it would cost for Retail!!!)

Andy
MilkMan5 16th January 2008, 14:18 Quote
Can anyone give me 5 good reasons why I should kill my XP and go for Vista?

Considering that my PC is running 100% (at the moment).
I just don’t see any valid reason(s) for me to upgrade to Vista.

I really think Vista looks good and I have used the Home edition and I was very impressed with it.
But, so what – it’s still no reason for me to “upgrade”.

Like most people, the day will come when I will go Vista, but until I feel the need to do it, I will remain using XP.

I remember when XP come out, I was one of the first people to stop using Win 98.
But then I had lots of reasons why I should go from Win 98 to XP, and I’m sure most of you know what I mean.
completemadness 16th January 2008, 15:26 Quote
My $0.02, There is nothing wrong with XP, in fact, for quite a lot of people its probably a better choice, because it uses less Ram its better for budget machines, its better for graphics (to some extent) work and its better for gaming, Most of this is just due to the fact vista eats Ram

Also, if you want to get to a lot of settings on vista, its many many more clicks
For example, network connections - XP, Start -> network connections
Vista, Start -> networking -> interfaces (or something like that), configure connections (or something like that) - it takes far longer to get to the exact same menu on vista

But it definitely has some improvements over XP (like the search part)

However, my main gripe is MS's hard sell tactic
If users don't want Vista, Why is MS forcing it down your throat, they are giving you no choice

I don't understand why MS is doing this, they didn't do it with 98 when ME came out, they didn't do it with 2000 when XP came out
In the end, it all screams to me of "Our OS is a turd, but if we give users no other choice they will have to buy it"
kempez 16th January 2008, 20:32 Quote
I 1/2 agree with completemadness in that it is a little "hard sell", although you can't blame MS for wanting to make money out of it's product I suppose.

What I would prefer MS to be "hard selling" would be 64bit...make the industry move to 64bit sa we cut all this faffing around with half and half
Mankz 16th January 2008, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kempez
I 1/2 agree with completemadness in that it is a little "hard sell", although you can't blame MS for wanting to make money out of it's product In suppose.

What I would prefer MS to be "hard selling" would be 64bit...make the industry move to 64bit sa we cut all this faffing around with half and half

I'm with Kempez on this.
Da Dego 17th January 2008, 00:20 Quote
/hugs OSX 10.5 and Debian.

Oh, I'm sorry...we're talking about Windows. Yeah. Rah rah, go MS.

If anything, I'm with the guys who say kill off all the 32b versions. Period.

/goes back to the OSes he actually enjoys using.
Shielder 17th January 2008, 09:31 Quote
LOL Dego! Seconded! Why are MS still publishing 32bit OSs? 64 bit processors have been around for nearly 4 years now. All new pcs are being built with 64 bit processors (except for those running a VIA or is it Cyrix chip). So why are MS still making a 32 bit OS? Oh yes, backwards compatability and all that (from MS? Don't make me laugh!) but you can build a 32bit emulation layer in the 64 bit OS precisely for that purpose. Anyone with half a brain won't upgrade their 32 bit system to Vista anyway, it'd probably run like a dog!

64 bit (linux) all the way.

Andy
Glider 17th January 2008, 09:38 Quote
I laugh at all the people who are saying MS is forcing them into Vista... If you have a copy of XP, you just keep it. It's not that it'll stop working in 2 months or something... In 50 years you can still be using XP if you want.

Also, who's forcing you on a new system? Buy no OS, download your favourite flavour of Linux, and install it. That way you'll have a full 64bit OS, 100% customizable to your needs, and at the price of... Well nothing...
Paradigm Shifter 17th January 2008, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
I laugh at all the people who are saying MS is forcing them into Vista... If you have a copy of XP, you just keep it. It's not that it'll stop working in 2 months or something... In 50 years you can still be using XP if you want.
I'm a little curious to see whether MS will maintain the XP Product Activation servers, will kill them off and give people no way to activate XP, or release some Activation Removal tool.

Time, as always, will tell.
icutebluezone 17th January 2008, 11:30 Quote
Will always LOVE XP PRO SP2 and sp3 when i get it
Silver Shamrock 17th January 2008, 11:32 Quote
*
naokaji 17th January 2008, 11:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Dego
If anything, I'm with the guys who say kill off all the 32b versions. Period.

rumors have it that there will even be 32bit versions of the next windows os
Shadow_101 17th January 2008, 12:47 Quote
tbh I’ve not spent much time with vista, I’m not to fussed either. My house mate has Vista Home on his shiny new dell, which whilst looking nice is a pain in the arse when it comes to networking. It takes the best part of a week (slight exaggeration) to calculate a file transfer, and then insists on a painfully slow transfer rate.

So for now i'm very happy with my xp pro sp3 machine :)
Shielder 17th January 2008, 14:21 Quote
I think those rumours (32 and 64 bit versions) are from Redmoond itself via ZDNet (always a reputable source...

If the rumours are true, it is definately a step backwards. Look at the memory requirements for computers in the last 3 years; in 2004, 512MB was standard. In 2007, 2GB is standard. therefore, applying (very) fuzzy logic to this argument, we'll be installing at least 8GB into our machines in 2010. How is a 32bit OS (and associated programs) going to address that memory?

Yet again, more Microsoft "innovation".

Andy
cpemma 17th January 2008, 14:25 Quote
Well, I'm signed up. But the only reason for MS to continue support for XP will be a continued decent volume of sales of XP. That's not going to happen. Sorry, but Joe Public and Fred Business both want new technology in their new equipment. An 800MHz processor and Office 2000 are still adequate for virtually all SOHO needs - but technology relies on the replacement market to bring in the money, whether it's cars or computers.

I may buy another XP OEM with my next upgrade, but two or three years from now I expect to be using a newer OS. XP was a hard act to follow, Vista hasn't got off to a good start, but the hardware will soon catch up.
Glider 17th January 2008, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FR34K
one thing is for sure...vista won't set foot(figuratively speaking) on any machine I will ever own...or in any house I live in.
I wish I could be a fly in your house in 5 to 10 years... Either you are using Vista, or Linux by then... I think it'll be the former...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FR34K
Half of it's processes are a waste, and an excuse to sell more hardware that you normally wouldn't need in the first place.
Just like games are...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter
I'm a little curious to see whether MS will maintain the XP Product Activation servers, will kill them off and give people no way to activate XP, or release some Activation Removal tool.
Or just make Phone activation the default way... It's just a 2 minutes phone call to a free number.
Shielder 17th January 2008, 16:30 Quote
For now...

2010 rolls around and the number will suddenly be redirected to an 090 number!

Andy
Glider 17th January 2008, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
For now...

2010 rolls around and the number will suddenly be redirected to an 090 number!

Yeah, because MS is the root of all evil... :(
steveo_mcg 17th January 2008, 16:50 Quote
You may mock but lets face it by 2010 XP isn't making any money for the company you know the way business thinks, any thing making a loss should be dropped, so they can either kill the activation line or charge for it they may be polite and charge but realistically they'll probably just cut them off. TBH i doubt they'd cut off the servers they're probably running quite happily along side the vista ones and the next OS.
cpemma 17th January 2008, 20:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
You may mock but lets face it by 2010 XP isn't making any money for the company you know the way business thinks, any thing making a loss should be dropped, so they can either kill the activation line or charge for it
Or just make it so, once support ends, any and all copies of XP are automatically activated online, whatever the circumstances. No staff costs, any extra piracy losses will be negligible. MS have several times made things easier for the bad people to avoid upsetting the corporate customers; members here have commented on the ease of getting re-activated over the phone even when they've obviously broken the EULA.

I've other software that needs activation; I'm far more concerned that those smaller companies may go belly-up and leave me in the lurch.
cpemma 18th January 2008, 19:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpemma
I may buy another XP OEM with my next upgrade...
...but ebuyer made me an offer I can't refuse in today's deals. I've bit the bullet and ordered Vista for the new system.
completemadness 18th January 2008, 23:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpemma
...but ebuyer made me an offer I can't refuse in today's deals. I've bit the bullet and ordered Vista for the new system.
Its not even that great a deal, The OEM version is horribly locked (crippled) to a PC, plus you only get the 32bit disc (the proper ones come with both i believe)

When i was re-installing my PC i had to choose between vista x64 and XPx64 (both free through school) and chose XPx64 in the end, and haven't been upset really, plus Ive seen some of my programs saying "doesn't support vista x64"
Maybe that's just me, but i did talk to a lot of people to help me decide, and it was marginally in favour of XPx64 for better gaming performance
The_Beast 19th January 2008, 00:03 Quote
On the fence about this one
Cthippo 19th January 2008, 06:14 Quote
Win ME works fine. In fact, I'm using it right noe to type thins because I haven't gotten the cable service to my new place yet and I refuse to go buy another modem just to get dialup working under linux.

Really, I don't care what MS does. They lost me with Vista's new "features" and I made the switch to linux. Technically I am set up to dual boot to XPpro64, but doing so requires finding a different keyboard and it hasn't been worth it. Yeah, I miss gaming once in a while, and there are some new games I want to try, but so far it just hasn't seemed that important.

By the time games require vista I'll either get Cedega or Wine figured out, or I will go without.

I'm also carrying around linux CDs to hand out to whoever wants one.
cpemma 20th January 2008, 19:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
Win ME works fine. In fact, I'm using it right noe to type thins
The keyboard driver seems buggy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
I'm also carrying around linux CDs to hand out to whoever wants one.
The similarity between Linux fans and Jehovah's Witnesses is duly noted. ;)
Shielder 21st January 2008, 10:26 Quote
Oooo emma. Ouch!

In about 5 years, when everyone is using a console for games, we'll be wondering "what happened to Microsoft"? Esp. when the only thing that seems to keep people using Windows is the Windows games...

Andy
Glider 21st January 2008, 10:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpemma
The similarity between Linux fans and Jehovah's Witnesses is duly noted. ;)

We 'spread the light' as well... :D
steveo_mcg 21st January 2008, 10:52 Quote
And turn up randomly at peoples doors.... like the TV licence people
MilkMan5 22nd January 2008, 15:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
In about 5 years, when everyone is using a console for games, we'll be wondering "what happened to Microsoft"? Esp. when the only thing that seems to keep people using Windows is the Windows games... Andy

I really don’t think that will be the case, Microsoft’s main focus & drive for MS Windows is the corporate market.

However, I do think that during the next 5 years, MS will face a lot more competition from different O/S’s, such as Linux and Mac.
Consumers will have choices to play games on various platforms.

I enjoy playing games on my PC, for me it’s better than a console.
yodasarmpit 22nd January 2008, 15:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
Oooo emma. Ouch!

In about 5 years, when everyone is using a console for games, we'll be wondering "what happened to Microsoft"? Esp. when the only thing that seems to keep people using Windows is the Windows games...

Andy
I take it you're still at school :) Or don't work in an office environment.

Microsoft make their money, not in home systems, but in the business market.
So even regardless of games, Microsoft will still be there providing Operating Systems and Office related software to almost every business on the planet.
yodasarmpit 22nd January 2008, 15:50 Quote
.
Sorry double post
boiled_elephant 22nd January 2008, 16:02 Quote
I'm not done hating on Vista, so here are my latest reasons:

1) Microsoft are making it mandatory, and they released it too early. I might sympathise if they kept giving us the choice until they had Vista running as well as XP, but as things stand it's like being force-fed a half-cooked meal.

2) Versions. They release about 6 different versions of Vista, and don't even explain properly how they differ: when choosing, one must simply wade through that nauseatingly vague sales-marketing language they use, which makes every version sound like sugar-coated gold and fails to elaborate on why there's a £300 price difference between the lowest and the highest.

Take it back and serve it when it's hot, Microsoft, and give us a proper menu while you're there.
yodasarmpit 22nd January 2008, 16:30 Quote
I've had Vista installed on my laptop on dual boot with XP for just over a week now.
At first I wasn't sure, it just appeared to be XP with a shiny new coat.

Once I managed to track down drivers for sound, which due to HP/Compaq's complete lack of support for anything but a brand new product made this a task and a half, all is now well.
Ohh, and you have to switch off the confirmation thingie that pop's up asking you to verify every damned thing you do. Switched off after I found it hiding in the User account section.

The sidebar feels part of the system, not just an add on, as does the live task-bar preview (which I don't really use)

Overall I'm liking it so far, networking was easy, as was setting up wifi.
Even mapping network drives was easier, as when you go to type in the network address it remembers your previously entered values from a drop down list and you just need to change one letter.
It's these very small changes that make a difference.

I like the breadcrumb view, but I do miss the UP button. Why not give us both?

I booted back into XP after a week of exclusively using Vista and XP felt old, not slow but just dated.

I'm still getting used to Vista, and if it continues to impress I'll be adding it to my main PC.
chrisb2e9 22nd January 2008, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant


2) Versions. They release about 6 different versions of Vista, and don't even explain properly how they differ: when choosing, one must simply wade through that nauseatingly vague sales-marketing language they use, which makes every version sound like sugar-coated gold and fails to elaborate on why there's a £300 price difference between the lowest and the highest.

Take it back and serve it when it's hot, Microsoft, and give us a proper menu while you're there.

good point, i should be able to just take a quick glance at it and be able to pick the one thats right for me.
Shielder 23rd January 2008, 09:19 Quote
Sorry Yoda, I left University 12 years ago:(. I work in the Nuclear industry now and I've been instrumental in introducing Linux into the two firms I have worked for, not just for high powered number crunching, but also for the more basic office tasks. The businesses are slowly starting to realise that they don't have to pay through the nose for the OS and office package, when they can have similar functionality for free (or nearly free).

Throw in the security aspect of a Linux system, the ease of use, the possibility to have diskless thin clients booting off a common central image, centralised file storage and the lack of any Client Access Licenses for the mailserver, intranet server, print server etc etc, then you can see why Linux becomes so much more attractive. Throw in ISO standard document formats and the jobs a winner.

Andy
Woodstock 23rd January 2008, 10:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant


2) Versions. They release about 6 different versions of Vista, and don't even explain properly how they differ: when choosing, one must simply wade through that nauseatingly vague sales-marketing language they use, which makes every version sound like sugar-coated gold and fails to elaborate on why there's a £300 price difference between the lowest and the highest.

Take it back and serve it when it's hot, Microsoft, and give us a proper menu while you're there.

imo other then home basic, there all pretty much the same
yodasarmpit 23rd January 2008, 18:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
Sorry Yoda, I left University 12 years ago:(.
It's depressing anint it :)
Quote:
I work in the Nuclear industry now and I've been instrumental in introducing Linux into the two firms I have worked for, not just for high powered number crunching, but also for the more basic office tasks. The businesses are slowly starting to realise that they don't have to pay through the nose for the OS and office package, when they can have similar functionality for free (or nearly free).

Throw in the security aspect of a Linux system, the ease of use, the possibility to have diskless thin clients booting off a common central image, centralised file storage and the lack of any Client Access Licenses for the mailserver, intranet server, print server etc etc, then you can see why Linux becomes so much more attractive. Throw in ISO standard document formats and the jobs a winner.

Andy
Linux or Unix have been and will continue to be used in the server enviroment, but when it come to desktop end users the vast majority of companies use Windows and MS Office suite, companies will continue to pay license fee's so long as the support from MS continues.
They much preffer to have a standardised system, that has all the software they need available on that OS, unfortunatly Linux doesn't offer that solution.
cpemma 23rd January 2008, 19:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
...when it come to desktop end users the vast majority of companies use Windows and MS Office suite
It's largely been chicken & egg, companies use Win/MS Office because the new junior staff know it from college, the colleges teach Win/MS Office because that's what companies use...

Open Office was too late on the scene to make a difference and "the possibility to have diskless thin clients booting off a common central image, centralised file storage and the lack of any Client Access Licenses for the mailserver, intranet server, print server etc etc" cuts no ice with the typists.
GoodBytes 26th January 2008, 17:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breach
I couldn't disagree more. Who would want to "upgrade" to something that is slower and has virtually no noticeable changes aside a pretty interface and DX10? If the world liked Vista OEMs would not have gone back to offering XP after going Vista only at first. All the cool stuff that was supposed to make Vista awesome (WinFS for example) was scrapped, and in the end all you get is a sludgy and more annoying XP. Look at any Vista optimization guide, they all basically turn Vista into XP again...

Face it MS, you released something that sucks and no one wants. Stop trying to be Google and Apple, and make an OS that is actually revolutionary.
You should try Vista...
You have no idea how much new features there is in Vista. And interesting things you can do with it to increase your productivity, and stop searching for your apps, delete/cut/move/etc... a group of files, and more.

They are small features, that are not worth marketing for, but when you add them all up, it makes Vista very interesting.I recommend using the 64-bit Vista, as it seams to lack of a LOT of bugs reported, including the lack of network issues.

On yo your second point. There is nothing revolutionary in Mac OS X. Most things were stolen from Longhorn, and even THEN these are just little features... including instant search. That is NOT revolutionary. What is revolutionary can only be found in some movie... Minority Report? And that is not going to work, as it would be too different, and people won't adopt it.
Cthippo 28th January 2008, 05:07 Quote
I've never understood why desktop search is a big deal. The only time I've ever used it is when trying to find all the .dlls for a driver install. Otherwise I remember where I put stuff on the hard drive. Or is it just me?
naokaji 28th January 2008, 08:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
I've never understood why desktop search is a big deal. The only time I've ever used it is when trying to find all the .dlls for a driver install. Otherwise I remember where I put stuff on the hard drive. Or is it just me?

nah, its not just you, organizing files so you can find them ftw.
steveo_mcg 28th January 2008, 09:22 Quote
Code:
find / -name=*filenamehere*  

job done... i don't get it either!
Shielder 28th January 2008, 09:28 Quote
Quote:
On yo your second point. There is nothing revolutionary in Mac OS X. Most things were stolen from Longhorn, and even THEN these are just little features... including instant search. That is NOT revolutionary.

Oh stop banging the MS drum! It's hurting my ears. (Faintly heard "Come and join us, come and join us" in the style of Ken Dodd :) )

Face it, MS didn't innovate, they copied, just like they have done all along. How you expect me to believe that an OS can "increase productivity" is beyond me. Factor in the relearning of the interface and the increased processor overhead, the playing around with the, frankly, useless Aero interface, and you have a productivity drop, not an increase.

In my personal experience, I have only met one person who likes Vista, and then only because they use FSX and can see an improvement over FS2004 on XP.

As with all things though, you use what you like. I like Linux (although I have to use Windows in work, but that is changing:D) I find ti works well for me. Most people like XP, some like Vista. It all depends on what you like and what you prefer to use.

Andy

Feel free to flame away, I like a frank and open discussion.;)

Oh, and this isn't a personal attack on you, Goodbytes, it is for every $OS fanboi out there who thinks that $OS is the dogs dangly bits and doesn't care about anything else.
DougEdey 28th January 2008, 09:38 Quote
Meh, Microsoft have a monopolized market with operating systems, they can choose to start or stop OSes as and when they want because what alternatives does the mainstream user have? Mac - sure people are hearing of it more but it's unfamiliar to the person who's spent over a decade using XP. Linux - even less familiar and more scary because of the way it's portrayed in the media.

But neither have the killing blow to Microsofts DirectX, so people who play PC games will never be able to fully leave Windows.
Shielder 28th January 2008, 09:45 Quote
OpenGL anyone?

Andy
DougEdey 28th January 2008, 09:49 Quote
Nowhere near as widely used as directX. DirectX is almost exclusively what they teach here in the games programming courses.
completemadness 28th January 2008, 09:57 Quote
OpenGL isnt used for games (for some reason beyond me, probably because its more difficult to program)

But its very popular in the professional market (which, as far as i know, doesnt use D3D)
Glider 28th January 2008, 10:01 Quote
Isn't DirectX a complete 'suite' which handles audio and the likes, while OpenGL just does graphics?
completemadness 28th January 2008, 10:24 Quote
DirectX = D3D, DirectInput, DirectAudio and some other bits i believe
DougEdey 28th January 2008, 10:33 Quote
Yes it is, hence why there's nothing to compete against it.
Shielder 28th January 2008, 13:10 Quote
I play IL2 using OpenGL...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums