bit-tech.net

XP Home availability extended

XP Home availability extended

If you're buying an Eee PC in 2010, don't be surprised if it comes with Windows XP Home preinstalled.

If you're one of the many people dreading the removal of Windows XP from sale in the next few months, then you'll be pleased to hear that Microsoft has given the last-generation OS a reprieve – and it's pretty much entirely due to the Asus Eee PC.

Windows XP was due to reach its end-of-life stage in January this year, but Microsoft relented to pressure from customers not ready to make the switch to Vista and moved that date to the 30th of June. That was as far as the company was willing to go, however: they've spent far too much on Vista for everyone to keep buying XP.

But then along game the Asus Eee PC, and a raft of similar devices: small, lightweight machines that are underpowered when compared to their full-size brethren. With the massive success of these miniature marvels, Microsoft has been faced with a tough choice: as the devices aren't physically capable of running even the lightest version of Vista, does the company continue with its plan to kill off Windows XP and allow Linux the chance to flourish on these popular devices, or does it suck up its pride and offer a reprieve for the OS that wouldn't die?

Faced with a dilemma of that nature, there was only ever one predictable outcome. Windows XP will now be available to OEMs right the way through to June 2010, with rumours that support could extend even beyond that date. Microsoft isn't giving up on its efforts to get people to install their latest and greatest, though, with the company only extending the availability of Windows XP Home – the version of the OS which is missing vital networking components that prevent its use in a business environment. If you're hoping to join a network domain, then you're going to be stuck with Windows Vista Business.

Do you applaud Microsoft's move to extend the availability of XP at the lower-performance end of the market, or should makers of devices like the Eee PC concentrate on getting their specifications up to a level capable of running Vista? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

19 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
DarkLord7854 4th April 2008, 11:05 Quote
It's not such a bad thing.. Vista really isn't that bad, hopefully it'll force manufacturer's to produce even better drivers to support an even wider range of hardware setups (*cough* Creative *cough*)
sotu1 4th April 2008, 11:06 Quote
smart move by micro$. they clearly don't want to but smart move.
steveo_mcg 4th April 2008, 11:19 Quote
Shame really it was shaping up to be 2008/2009 year of desktop linux....
quack 4th April 2008, 12:05 Quote
Only Home? Then who cares?
DXR_13KE 4th April 2008, 12:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by quack
Only Home? Then who cares?

i use home and it is enough for me....
naokaji 4th April 2008, 12:23 Quote
microsoft could have also gone another route, a stripped down vista, but that would equal admitting that a big part of the stuff that comes with it is unnecessary so its not going to happen.
leexgx 4th April 2008, 12:39 Quote
vista striped down would just be XP heh

XP pro would of been an better option to extend but who would used an EE for Domains any way (nothing stoping you from puting on an copy of XP pro corp)
fargo 4th April 2008, 14:50 Quote
xp home is better than wasting money on vista problems and whats so hard about upgrading xp home
to xp pro with a xp pro cd I am surprised ms took it to 2010 but thats even better
Smilodon 4th April 2008, 18:01 Quote
Ah. Crap! Can't they just let the damn thing die?
wuyanxu 4th April 2008, 18:21 Quote
out of interest, can Asus EEE run Vista Basic??
Breach 4th April 2008, 21:06 Quote
Good, Vista is bloatware that is in most ways no better than XP. For me there is no reason to shell out 200 bucks for something that does the same thing. I can add things to XP to make it do everything Vista does for FREE. Even their own Execs didn't like it!

Not that I think Vista is all bad, however, it does have a few cool things and revisions. Problem is to me that seems to be about it though, hardly any of the features that were supposed to make Vista awesome were stripped out in various stages, like WinFS.

I think the only reason we even have SP3 coming is because of Vista's poor market performance and not so much the UMPC/Ultra mobiles, and they know this.
Tyinsar 4th April 2008, 21:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by quack
Only Home? Then who cares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
i use home and it is enough for me....
And I think MOST people don't know the difference anyway. Of those that do even a significant percentage of those don't need XP-Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
microsoft could have also gone another route, a stripped down vista, ...
I'd like to see that but to me it's looking like Vista might be the new M.E. (not near as bad but there seem to be quite a few people that will try to skip it entirely.)
Redbeaver 4th April 2008, 21:22 Quote
i wantthem to extend xp pro, not home.

most business use pro for domain among other things, n theyr the one thats harder to migrate; compared to home users.
r4tch3t 5th April 2008, 00:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeaver
I want them to extend xp pro, not home.

most business use pro for domain among other things, n they're the one that's harder to migrate; compared to home users.
But this is not for businesses, it is for micro machines like the eee, they want the businesses to upgrade to Vista. That's the whole reason they are only supporting home.
Ninja_182 5th April 2008, 14:33 Quote
Reminds me of years back when XP was the new system. I know a large number of people who refused to switch from 2000 to XP as all it offered at the time was a sluggish response on older systems. Not that it affects us with our above average systems but I dont know of many in companies who are activly switching over.
-EVRE- 5th April 2008, 20:40 Quote
Whats are you guys complaining about? j/k :D
If you want the network support find a cd code for w2k. If I were to have an Eeepc, thats what I would put on it. (I could right? and have it work?)

w2k is a VERY lean and great os. My moms computer is a PII 233 with 384mb of ram and it screams right along, runs firefox, Office XP, and.. StarCraft! The only lag time with it is asking it to load a program like Office, but once its running its fine.

The Eee right out of the box has a 600mhz processor and 512mb of ram, I can see it running w2k and all you could need just fine.
Ninja_182 5th April 2008, 20:55 Quote
They should release 2k as freeware :D

The amount of times I have ended up using an XP system on the bottom end of the hardware requirements and thought, it may as well have 2k on it, would function exactly the same but only faster.

They should make (there maybe already, I haven't actually looked into it) a build of Vista which is stripped down to run on "last gen" hardware such as the eee, and many peoples older desktops. Right now the only option is to use an older version of windows (XP or 2k) or Linux which has it all covered but isn't such an easy switch. It might be partially in MS interest to cater for people who wont upgrade Windows because it requires a hardware upgrade for un-required functionality. But then I guess Microsoft have a shady deal with Intel et al to force people off older hardware.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
microsoft could have also gone another route, a stripped down vista, but that would equal admitting that a big part of the stuff that comes with it is unnecessary so its not going to happen.

Seems I was beaten to the point, I guess some people understand that some of it isn't important.
My dad wont upgrade because he knows that he doesn't require the aero thing, any DX10, media integration etc.
Work wont upgrade because it wont make office run faster.
I wont upgrade because DX9 is fine by me and I run XP as close to 2K style anyway.
c.cam108 6th April 2008, 00:30 Quote
I for one will definately not be upgrading to Vista. After installing it on a couple of customers' PCs I can't stand it. Nothing seems to work like it did in XP and everything is "You are an idiot - you don't want to do that! Here, let me do what you really wanted." This is the reason it took both me and my dad (both of us very savvy computer experts, my dad especially in networking) over 2 hours to get Vista on our home wireless network.

I've been using XP since I started really getting into computers. My first pc was a Win98, then I had a WinME, Win2K and finally WinXP. Win98 is 10 years old now, WinME was totally rubbish and Win2K took about 15 minutes to boot after SP3. Windows XP has been the most stable, usable Windows ever IMHO. I know my way around it, I know how it works, I know how to solve most problems. When it comes to Vista, I am totally lost, as I don't recognise any of it from XP. If it ain't broke, don't fix it guys!

So untill Windows ME... sorry, I meant Vista :p is replaced I won't be using it on my personal computer.

_C
lewchenko 6th April 2008, 20:00 Quote
Vista works perfectly well on my PC. I imagine its the same for the vast majority of people too.

However... as an IT buff I have customised VISTA to give me the best possible experience. Unfortunately for microsoft that means I have turned off SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, Indexing, UserAccessControl, and a whole bucket load of other minor services.

Why did I do this ?

Because my hard drive would be constantly accessing 100% of the time if I didnt, and my memory would be full of stuff VISTA thought I would load next... but probably wouldnt load.

Now that sucks.

But now its optimised... it works well... just like my old XP did. Waste of money upgrade to be honest, but as a Gamer, I wanted DX10. Plus an OEM copy of VISTA home premium was cheaper than an OEM copy of XP PRO when I built my new machine.
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