bit-tech.net

XP support extended to 2014

XP support extended to 2014

Although you won't be seeing these after this year, that doesn't mean that XP won't still be available.

Despite Microsoft's plans to the contrary, it looks like Windows XP will be with us for a while yet.

Information Week quotes a letter sent to major Microsoft customers this week by senior vice president Bill Veghte which states that the giant will, somewhat unwillingly, be providing security patches “and other critical updates” until April 2014.

For those of you keeping count, that's rather later than the 30th June 2008 deadline Microsoft had originally planned, and even beats the June 2010 'extended availability' of Windows XP Home that was prompted by the growth of Linux on low-powered sub-laptop systems

In his letter, Veghte states that his company's support for Windows XP is “the result of our recognition that people keep their Windows-based PCs for many years.” Presumably it has nothing to do with the somewhat lukewarm reception its successor, the resource-hungry Vista, has received from businesses.

Perhaps most telling is that the extended support for XP doesn't stop at patches and bugfixes: Microsoft is actively promoting the availability of a 'downgrade' option by which business customers who purchase Vista PCs will be able to switch to XP for free. While this will please corporations looking to expand their XP infrastructure beyond the official end-of-life, it's hard to see it as anything other than an admission that Vista is unsuitable for business use.

Do we have any Vista Business users here, or are you sticking with XP in the corporate environment until you see a good reason to change? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

40 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
rjkoneill 27th June 2008, 10:35 Quote
im still not keen on rolling out vista on the work networks

i still have trouble finding things in vista at home due to heavy xp use at work

if i was to roll out vista i think company productivity would suffer
makkone- 27th June 2008, 10:37 Quote
XP still in usage at work and in home, and i see no reason to "upgrade" to vista. If it ain't broke etc... ;)
Paradigm Shifter 27th June 2008, 10:54 Quote
Only reason I can see (for me) to switch to Vista is CrossFireX with a pair of 4870X2's when they're released. Still, the chances of me actually going quadfire are so slim it's not really worth worrying about right now.

I quite like Vista as an HTPC OS, but as my day to day OS, I still prefer XP by a long shot.
banshee256 27th June 2008, 11:04 Quote
The only reason I have Vista, is because I couldn't choose XP when I bought my new Dell computer.

Having said that, I'm actually a bit (positively) surprised by Vista. It might be a resource-hog, but when you have the resources, it's no slower than XP. But it's not faster either. The only REAL difference I've experienced, is, that it looks a lot better and the interface is a lot better thought out.

But I see no reason for a company to spend X amount of pounds to upgrade all their computers to Vista. There's just no point.
johnnyboy700 27th June 2008, 11:30 Quote
I'll stick with XP until I'm forced to jump. I've tried Vista on my wife's laptop and I find that I prefer XP for most things but Vista does have some nice touches but it gets so much bad press, how much is doom mongers slagging it for the sake of it and how much is genuine I can't decide.
I know it did have problems at the start (the iPod issue and EAX to name two) but they are getting there, shame it wasn't right at the launch.
Dreaming 27th June 2008, 11:44 Quote
I find vista to be easier to use now I'm used to it, but it's the same with anything. And the resource usage I think is an intelligent thing. If you have 2gb memory, in xp it will use the bare minimum, in vista it will try and utilise more to load frequently used programs into the memory pre-emptively. Quite clever when you think about it.

But an OS is an OS, it's in some ways like discussing hammers - it's just a tool so you can get / do what you really want.
Phil Rhodes 27th June 2008, 11:48 Quote
> I'll stick with XP until I'm forced to jump.

Ditto.

It's not so much doom-mongers as people looking for reasons it's worthwhile. XP offers me absolutely nothing more than 2000 did, which really only offered stability increases over 98, so I have no idea what they could possibly offer me after three major releases and ten years without a really notable change in anything.
BlackMage23 27th June 2008, 12:17 Quote
I use XP on my work machine, and the company has said that it has no intentions to change that for the moment.
I aggree with banshee256, vista is not bad when you throw a ton of RAM at it, but that should not really be the answer to getting it working well. I am hoping that windows 7 turns out to be a lot better - though that will probably need 8gb of ram to run well.
perplekks45 27th June 2008, 12:56 Quote
I had Vista installed at home 'till Tuesday but then Vista decided that I had less than a week before my copy expired. Vista Business from uni + SP1 Beta = evaluation copy. :|
Back at XP, trying SP3 at the moment, runs fine and fast (it was shocking to see how fast XP is after > 6 months on Vista) and I don't plan to go back to Vista before October at least. Hopefully I'll find the time to set up a dual-boot system once I moved to England.

Anyways, at work we just got our test PCs for Vista (yay for being in the IT department of a 100 people sub company of tesa :D) and we have more issues than you can imagine (well, maybe you can).
Using infor:COM 6.4 as ERP system... no Vista support. It works somehow but noone knows if it really is 100% stable and if everything works as intended. It's also getting quite stressy as we're just the IT department of the sub and Beiersdorf (the company behind tesa) hired BSS to take care of IT what means every single decision made by us has to be given to tesa and BSS for approval... i.e. "Why the hell can't you just make me local admin on my bloody Vista test PC?!"... waiting for an answer for > 1 week.
tesa will roll out Vista to all their employees by the end of this year and I'm just happy to not be there anymore as this will be such a mess. ;)
Gunsmith 27th June 2008, 13:04 Quote
i jumped to vista for the tri-sli support, and i must say as an OS it is growing on me.
Timmy_the_tortoise 27th June 2008, 13:22 Quote
Vista is supposed to look better than XP.. but I much prefer the old XP appearance.. with the blue and the green start button.
E7130 27th June 2008, 13:23 Quote
What is with this crap news. Microsoft has always had life cycles of its products. Windows 98 was supported up until 2006 with updates and fixes. Windows 2000 made it all the way to service pack 4. Windows Server 2000 is STILL supported. I use vista and xp at home and work, there is always going to be issues; when XP was released business people and most everyone else threw up there hands too.
Major 27th June 2008, 13:28 Quote
Will never go to Vista I'm afraid, and hopefully they make a nice, simple, Windows 7 for all of us that want something normal like XP.
Xir 27th June 2008, 13:34 Quote
My company runs 2000 and xp ;-)
Timmy_the_tortoise 27th June 2008, 13:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
My company runs 2000 and xp ;-)

We run XP... and there's no plans to shift to Vista any time soon.. I'll be long long long gone by that time. If it even happens.
Hustler 27th June 2008, 14:07 Quote
I bought a cheap laptop with Vista Premium installed, after 2mths i upgraded to XP and it was like a whole new machine.

Unless you have 2Gb ram, Vista is just too slow,

Win Xp Sp 3 + 1GB ram + Budget laptop = happiness.
TreeDude 27th June 2008, 14:28 Quote
I run Vista Ult on my main gaming machine. Even with 4gb of RAM and a Radeon 3870 it didn't feel snappy enough. I turned off all the effects except for Aero and it sped things up quite a bit. I have an old P3 laptop that I run Ubuntu on for just web and IM.
pizan 27th June 2008, 14:33 Quote
i still run XP at home and at work we have some XP, 2000, NT and DOS lol, some of the machines don't need anything above that so why upgrade?
Phil Rhodes 27th June 2008, 16:01 Quote
> something normal like XP

The pity here is that XP - seen as horribly bloated and slow compared to 2k - is now seen as "normal".
naokaji 27th June 2008, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
> something normal like XP

The pity here is that XP - seen as horribly bloated and slow compared to 2k - is now seen as "normal".

Computers have improved enough that xp runs at the same speed as win2k did a few years ago. Same will happen with vista, once 8 core nehalems, 12 GB DDR3, radeon 6850 and 4 ssd's in raid 0 are low end rubbish in 2011 or so.
Timmy_the_tortoise 27th June 2008, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
> something normal like XP

The pity here is that XP - seen as horribly bloated and slow compared to 2k - is now seen as "normal".

Computers have improved enough that xp runs at the same speed as win2k did a few years ago. Same will happen with vista, once 8 core nehalems, 12 GB DDR3, radeon 6850 and 4 ssd's in raid 0 are low end rubbish in 2011 or so.

I don't think the situation is quite that bad... With enough money you could probably get a machine which could very comfortably run Vista nowadays.
naokaji 27th June 2008, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy_the_tortoise
I don't think the situation is quite that bad... With enough money you could probably get a machine which could very comfortably run Vista nowadays.

sure you can, a E7200, a p35 board, 2GB cheapo DDR2 a radeon 3650 and a decent hdd like a samsung f1 320 GB run vista just fine and woudnt break the bank.
the reality is that many companies use far worse pc's, try first gen p4, 512 MB ram and integrated graphics from back then and you have the reality in todays offices.
perplekks45 27th June 2008, 17:05 Quote
What about all that Vista-capable PC crap? My PC can run it perfectly fine at stock and I would NOT consider it being high-end. :|
GoodBytes 27th June 2008, 19:09 Quote
I run Vista 32-bit on my AMD Athlon XP 3200+, nforce 2, 2GB of RAM, Geforce FX 5900 128MB. (my mobo in my sig is being RMA)
If you get the latest drivers (from nvidia, not Windows Update), the OS runs just as well as XP ever did. Now, granted that the video card drivers are not optimize at all (nvdia does not care about their old FX 5000 series). However since 2005-2006... no game works other then pure minimum settings (even Half-Life doesn't run smoothly), so I just don't care, and it does a great job with Aero.

- Why did I upgraded... It was easy to transfer my program configuration from my newer PC to this one (just copy & paste your profile folder in Vista)
- I navigate trough my computer way faster, thanks to the instant search bar on Start Menu.
- Transparency on the boarders allows me to better manager a lot of windows.
- I like the overall feel of Vista UI.
- More responsive.
- SuperFetch
- Fast install (25min for this computer).

However, I still prefer Vista 64-bit.
ssj12 27th June 2008, 19:33 Quote
so are they extending the life of XP Professional too?
Phil Rhodes 27th June 2008, 19:40 Quote
> Computers have improved enough that xp runs at the same speed as win2k did a few years ago.

I think this is missing the point entirely.

I own a computer to run applications - the OS is a means to an end!

Making it harder to run the OS is going BACKWARDS.
GoodBytes 27th June 2008, 19:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
> Computers have improved enough that xp runs at the same speed as win2k did a few years ago.

I think this is missing the point entirely.

I own a computer to run applications - the OS is a means to an end!

Making it harder to run the OS is going BACKWARDS.

So why do you need a more powerful computer? Ah because your applications has more features and require more computer power. And your games demands more and more power.
Wait... is that making applications and games go BACKWARDS?!

Your logic makes not much sense. Vista has new features which require more computer resources, like every other applications on your computer.
naokaji 27th June 2008, 19:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by aon`aTv.gsus666
What about all that Vista-capable PC crap? My PC can run it perfectly fine at stock and I would NOT consider it being high-end. :|

no, your pc is high end, the majority of office pc's doesnt even have c2d yet and often even less than 1GB ram...
GoodBytes 27th June 2008, 20:33 Quote
+1 to naokaji.
I believe that many industries won't even change on Windows 7. They will change Windows when they believe that the computer are too old, and lack of hardware support. For example, if they use DDR1 RAM and it needs to be upgraded for a much needed software of the motherboard brakes (discontinued), they can't get those easily and cheap. Once they reach that point, they will get new computers with the latest Windows, and upgrade all their software to have them Windows NT6 (Vista and later on OS) compatible, and they will see about 64-bit version.
xaxaz 27th June 2008, 21:16 Quote
Perhaps Vista was ahead of its time? The average PC user didn't have the requirements to run the OS properly to begin with. Except for the few "Hardcore PC gamers" who have like 4+ GB's of RAM that is. I remember when XP came out most people still used less than 128mb's and some were even still running on 64mb's of ram. The average PC retails with 1GB I believe today and a majority that I've seen lately still have 512mb's. Don't you need 2Gb's to even run Vista properly?
LordPyrinc 27th June 2008, 23:47 Quote
I would suggest running Vista with at least 2 Gb of RAM. Even relatively idle with a couple of very minor apps running, its usually chugging around 850 Mb of memory usuage looking at the Task Manager. But who knows, if you turn off some of the 70 some odd processes that seem to be running in the background you might be able to run it on 1Gb. I never really tweaked the default installation when I got this thing out of the box from HP.
nitrous9200 28th June 2008, 00:01 Quote
I notice that Vista Ultimate, having all of the features from both Business and Home Premium, runs many more services which eat up RAM. Shutting a few down reduces Vista's memory footprint. I'm running an unlicensed version for 30 days to test it out, and I'm very pleased. (AMD X2 3800, 1GB RAM, 6600GT) I ran the betas and RC's when I only had a 3200+ single core and it ran just as fast. And besides the new UI, which is awesome (still some rough patches like old icons, etc. Look at http://www.istartedsomething.com/taskforce/ ) I love how all I needed to give it was my wireless driver, and then it found drivers for all of my system components as well as my printer and scanner. XP might be a little faster to start up and shut down, but that's because I've tweaked it like crazy. 1GB of RAM definitely isn't enough though, ~400 MB are used on an average desktop idle screen w/ sidebar, but running a game or other memory intensive app still fits in with RAM to spare. 2GB would be more than enough.
ParaHelix.org 28th June 2008, 00:24 Quote
Not a lot of people actually go ahead and do this, but Ubuntu or some other Linux distribution is perfect for business, SAMBA on Linux is a great domain controller and file server too.
mikeuk2004 28th June 2008, 01:08 Quote
My office has only recently upgraded to XP from Windows NT workstation after MS stopped supporting it. We wont be upgrading to Vista until MS refuse to support XP.

I wont be going to Vista until I need a new laptop and it comes with it, because I cant afford the PC and OS.
GoodBytes 28th June 2008, 01:25 Quote
@mikeuk2004, fo rteh price of Vista, you have to dig... I got Vista Ultimate RETAIL for 20$ (I got 2 of them... so 40$).
@nitrous9200, well in reality every windows is guilty of UI inconsistency and old icons thing... The idea of this, is crossing our (I posted stuff some time ago) figures that Windows will look at it, and start fixing those and create the first Windows that is all nice, or try and grab some Windows developers to spend a couple extra minutes to seek for such things and correct them.
Quote:
LordPyrinc said:
I would suggest running Vista with at least 2 Gb of RAM. Even relatively idle with a couple of very minor apps running, its usually chugging around 850 Mb of memory usage looking at the Task Manager. But who knows, if you turn off some of the 70 some odd processes that seem to be running in the background you might be able to run it on 1Gb. I never really tweaked the default installation when I got this thing out of the box from HP.
I have Vista ultimate and easily manage to make it eat ~300MB. The big thing that "takes" up the most RAM is SuperFetch (that is the thing that pre-loads your applications before you do for a way faster startup). You just have to remember that this feature does not reserve RAM, it freeze up as needed.


As nitrous9200 pointed out... most of us tweak Windows XP to the max and that is why we see that Vista is more heavy.. but if you don't do it, you will see it's not that much. And yes you can optimize to your needs Windows Vista. I made it run smoothly under a Pentium III 800Mhz, with 512MB of RAM. Granted to was HELL at the begging as everything is enabled... but once you disable about everything... it's lite and as (or nearly as) speedy as XP.
eek 28th June 2008, 12:56 Quote
We're moving to Vista at work towards the end of the year, not exactly a small company either with 10k+ employees just in the UK. I imagine the situation is similar elsewhere in the finance industry too.

I've been using Vista 64 for just under a year or so and I've found it pretty spot on. I got it free through an MSDN subscribtion though, I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay for it knowing that Windows 7 is only a couple of years away!! :)
Ninja_182 28th June 2008, 15:23 Quote
Still going strong on 2000. The desktops are early P4 models, runs 2000 as fast as my parents late model P4 runs XP, except they cost peanuts at the time and changing them results in spending money for no actual gain.

Vista isn't even in the picture.
AcidJiles 28th June 2008, 18:26 Quote
Good, that's all I have to say.
Cthippo 28th June 2008, 22:44 Quote
We've reached something of a plateau in terms of performance available vs performance needed, especially for business users. Most business users don't need anything more than office and perhaps some propritary database / VPN / POS / whatever software. A few need high end photoshop or video editing machines, but the vast majority get along just fine with a P4 and XP. I think what people are realizing is that at this point, there just isn't any real need to upgrade either the hardware or software.

From a business perspective, when you ask what's better about Vista, the answer isn't enough to justify not only the cost of the new OS, but also the cost of migration and of potential incompatibilities with mission critical software.

Or, to put it another way, if you want users, especially bsuinesses, to change OS, you need to offer enough new features to make it worthwhile. I feel that Vista has failed to deliver on this point.
3dHeli 1st July 2008, 15:08 Quote
I'm very happy with XP, and for the last two computers I've purchased, have bought Vista Business, and used downgrade rights to run with Windows XP Pro. With an extension to 2014, not sure I'll be installing the Vista OS for a long time.

I'm happy navigating around XP, so don't want to learn a new OS layout. I'm also concerned about the complaints of performance reduction with Vista, and lastly possibility of any compatiability issues (although most of my software is new so that shouldn't be a problem) . . . hence I think if it ain't broke don't fix it. Probably be 6 months before I put SP3 on ;)
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