bit-tech.net

XP to remain on shelves until June 2008

XP to remain on shelves until June 2008

Windows XP will be available from OEMs and retailers until June 2008.

Microsoft has given in to the growing pressure from computer manufacturers and customers. Computer manufacturers and retailers will be selling XP until the end of June next year - a five month extension of the original January 31 deadline.

Smaller computer sellers and Windows XP Starter Edition will also benefit from a later deadline too. The new deadlines are January 31, 2009 and June 30, 2010 respectively.

"There are some customers who need a little more time to make the switch to Windows Vista," said Mike Nash, head of Windows product management. "So we're responding to feedback we have gotten from our OEM partners that some customers will benefit by extending availability of Windows XP."

Typically, Microsoft stops selling its operating systems four years after release. The delay in getting Vista out the door, however, caused the company to rethink its selling strategies and extend deadlines for shipments.

"Although our research with customers before and since launch has reaffirmed our belief that the previous plan to offer Windows XP through Jan 2008 would address the needs of most customers, we did get clear feedback that there was a set of customers who needed a bit more time," said Nash. "Feedback from our OEM partners and from customers is that the June 30, 2008 date will address those needs. Of course, our plan was and continues to be that our system builder partners will be able to offer Windows XP until Jan. 30, 2009."

Support plans for all versions of Windows XP have remained unchanged. Microsoft will continue mainstream support until 2012 and extended support until 2017.

Are you happy that you'll be able to pick up a copy of Windows XP for another nine months from now? Would a lower price get you to switch over to Vista? Let us know over in the forums.

20 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Hells_Bliss 28th September 2007, 16:49 Quote
smart move on microsofts part. smarter move would be to port dx10 to xp though :p maybe i'm just biased 'cause i don't like vista
AcidJiles 28th September 2007, 17:06 Quote
not going to vista till after sp1 and not a moment sooner
Smilodon 28th September 2007, 17:07 Quote
Why would they want to keep XP alive? It's time to let it die now, honestly.

There will still be support for XP anyway.
chrisb2e9 28th September 2007, 17:18 Quote
dx10 on xp would be a good idea. since its the only thing that i sort of want that vista has. and im not upgrading my os just for dx10 (especially since my video card isn't even dx10)
koola 28th September 2007, 17:21 Quote
XP > Vista anyday. Just need dx10 for XP and I'll have the perfect gaming PC until dx10.1 :(
rito 28th September 2007, 18:32 Quote
http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/
These guys are porting dx10 to xp
GoodBytes 28th September 2007, 19:25 Quote
yea I can't wait to see how sluggish it will be, and how my games will freeze, and beside all that half of the feature will work. And that's me being optimistic about it.
XP is too old and need to die. I REALLY want change, I'm a type of person that LOVE change. If things don't change, it gets boring, tiering and makes my days more bland.

The second I switch to Vista Beta 2 with forced XP drivers for all my stuff (X-fi, Nforce 4, Geforce 6600), I simply hate XP.
I start to see ALL XP problems that I got used to. Liiiiike:
- Roll-over your mouse on your clock and wait for the tool-tip to appear and disappear. Congratulation!!! now a full Windows startup is needed to make the tool-tip on the clock work.
- Tool-tip appears behind start menu on task bar and quick-launch bar (this doesn't do it all the time)
- Networking issues on a simple network system with XP Pro SP2
- Start-menu "freezes" when you edit too much the Start menu on the start-menu (rename, delete items)
- Remote Desktop can change the classic start menu side XP label.
- If you open a folder with files and folder WITHOUT scroll bars and use the "selector" (you know, click on nothing and keep your mouse button pressed, and drag your mouse. The blue semi transparent selector), and move that selector to the bottom edge of your window, your content will jump up an down stupidly. If you open My computer then go to a folder, or use control Panel it will NOT work. Also items need to set as "tile" or "icons" (see attachment)
- SOMETIMES Windows appear above task bar of 1 px, even thus you set your task bar to not do that (only shows in Classic skin)
- Applications can easily steal focus from you.
- Taskbar flash blue items like if something changed or something to tell you to check it out, but nothing happened on it, same applies for windows.
- Internet Explorer is part of explorer.
- If you make appear the window "tip-of-the-day" [View>"Explorer Bar">"tip-of-the-day"] (yea it has that), and you click on "New tip" again and again and again (like 20-30 fast clicks), and you will see that the tip don't repeat, they will simply not show.

And I can go just on... the List is SOOOO VERY LONG.
Redbeaver 28th September 2007, 19:38 Quote
agree. XP should just die already. and its not just about Dx10. nowhere near. but Vista is the way to go forward. period. ;)
capnPedro 28th September 2007, 19:43 Quote
There are a few things wrong with Vista, but I'm not going back to XP. Overall, I think Vista is better than XP.

I won't put Vista on older machines, though. Those will either get XP or Linux, depending on their job. I need XP (MCE) for my HTPC and Vista for my main (gaming) rig, but other machines can get Linux.
GuitarBizarre 28th September 2007, 19:56 Quote
Hardware limitations are forcing the changes. While for this exact instant XP is better, soon enough even average consumer systems will be reaching XP's RAM limit, and other assorted limitations.
Hells_Bliss 28th September 2007, 20:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre
Hardware limitations are forcing the changes. While for this exact instant XP is better, soon enough even average consumer systems will be reaching XP's RAM limit, and other assorted limitations.

normal vista is a 32bit OS...meaning you can have your 2.5gb but until you go to 64bit, you're not getting your 4gb. why upgrade to vista when it's 1) a RAM hog 2)requires a minimum of 256mb vid card 3) is still 32bit?

I can use my fancy dancy XP 64bit and have a stable, tested OS that runs that much faster then vista.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodbytes
- Roll-over your mouse on your clock and wait for the tool-tip to appear and disappear. Congratulation!!! now a full Windows startup is needed to make the tool-tip on the clock work.


press the start button. your tooltip is now back :D no need to restart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodbytes
words
you actually think all those problems are fixed in vista? or that others aren't created with Aero? This is Microsoft we're talking about here.
Tyinsar 28th September 2007, 20:48 Quote
For a fresh install on a recent board Vista worked way better than XP for me - though still not as smooth as some Linux distros.
completemadness 28th September 2007, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hells_Bliss
you actually think all those problems are fixed in vista? or that others aren't created with Aero? This is Microsoft we're talking about here.
QFT

in my limited experience using vista (installing it for a customer that demanded it) i hated it, it was complete rubbish
Networking in windows is still slow, buggy and generally doesn't really work

Vista is a waste of money, XP does what i want - it runs my software and its easy to get going, why do i care about an extra bell or whistle on vista, when you have to deal with all the driver issues, and all the rest
If i wanted to put up with that, i would start using ubuntu
cyrilthefish 29th September 2007, 02:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre
Hardware limitations are forcing the changes. While for this exact instant XP is better, soon enough even average consumer systems will be reaching XP's RAM limit, and other assorted limitations.
Like others have already said, Vista does NOTHING to change this. 32bit vista still has the exact same limitations as 32bit XP, and 64bit versions of either OS don't have these problems.

in my personal opinion:
64 bit OS > 32 bit OS
64bit XP > 64bit vista*

*I have actually tried vista for 2 weeks, the overall impression i got was XP + prettyness + bloat + things moved and things dumbed-down for no apparent reason + incompatibilities**.

** have yet to get bioshock to work in vista, even with a clean install + brand new drivers + bioshock only

especially annoying is the fact that MS loosened the requirements for DX10 a while back, removing the last vista-only component dx10 needed... The only thing stopping DX10 on XP now is MS trying to force people to upgrade :(
boynoing 29th September 2007, 11:14 Quote
Vista must be a new OS for most people. Just like when XP released, and win98 disappeared.
GoodBytes 29th September 2007, 15:04 Quote
Quote:

2)requires a minimum of 256mb vid card

Sorry, Vista Aero works well with my Evga Geforce FX 5900 128MB SE (NOTE: SE stands for Sucky Edition, and not Special Edition).
And that video card was an Nforce 2 with an AMD Athlon XP 2500+ with 768 GB of RAM. The OS not is running perfectly, put you'll get the same effect with XP with 448MB of RAM. And that was Vista Beta 2, I did not try RC1 or RC2 on it, and with WinXP Drivers for both video card and mobo, and my soundstorm sound card.
Quote:

you actually think all those problems are fixed in vista? or that others aren't created with Aero? This is Microsoft we're talking about here.
They are! Vista has it's issues like all OS's in this planet, but at least it doesn't prevent you from beeing productive, or reboot your computer because XP starts to take more and more resources for no reason after leaving your comp on for 3 days without any reboots. Also while you have your startup programs, you can DO SOMETHING with Vista, you don't need to wait like more 2min (even without any startup applications) before your system is ready, and if you use the start menu, while it loads it disappears on you, you really have to wait until everything is fully loaded. Also, under Vista, when you open a big file (project in some big fat program or big video) you still have access to the folder of where the you ran the file. In XP, the folder becomes "Not responding", and you have to wait until everything is fully loaded. And that's all with a dual core processor.
Quote:

in my limited experience using vista (installing it for a customer that demanded it) i hated it, it was complete rubbish
Networking in windows is still slow, buggy and generally doesn't really work
That's because you don't know how to use or configure a network under Vista. This slowness problem was visible in RC1 but not RC2. so I think you used a wrong (crack or beta ?!) copy, or did not update windows, or it's a driver fault, contact your hardware manufacture and tell them they are complete idiotic for making vista drivers at l the last very last minute, in addition, on how their drivers sucks.
Quote:

** have yet to get bioshock to work in vista, even with a clean install + brand new drivers + bioshock only
If I understand correctly, that sounds like driver issues. Contact your hardware manufacture and tell them they are complete idiotic for making vista drivers at l the last very last minute, in addition, on how their drivers sucks.
Quote:

*I have actually tried vista for 2 weeks, the overall impression i got was XP + prettyness + bloat + things moved and things dumbed-down for no apparent reason + incompatibilities**.
Try is for a month, and you will love it. Make sure you have the latest updates and drivers first.
If you think Vista is XP with prettyness + bloat, that's because you didn't use enough.
As for incompatibilities, go the website of every software and make sure you download the latest software version or patch or Vista edition of the software, or contact the support forum.

Also, define "bloat", tell me what is "bloat" 'ed or, well, useless but that takes system resources like crazy. (and don't stupidly say "Vista" or "The hole OS", or something similar.) If you don't know what takes so much system ressources, tell us so we can clear up your misinformation.
Daniel114 29th September 2007, 15:17 Quote
When my new PC is built up I fully intend to dual boot with a 32 bit XP and a 64 bit Vista, if nothing else simply so I can play the games I have now and take full advantage of my X-Fi and other apps that run seamlessly with XP. granted it took me ages to move on from windows 98 (dropped 95 sharpish though).

All that's going to happen is from now on everything will be built with Vista in mind, I don't think it'll be that it gets much more stable as a platform itself, its just that developers will have to embrace its problems (like I'm guessing they did with every other new OS) until its the norm

Maybe I'm just to long in the tooth nowadays, or that I see XP as my 'game safe' dual boot to Fedora? Everyone seems to be arguing for and against the move, I think what willl happen is all those that swear by XP will only do so until something comes out just for it and they'll have to switch (as dx10 did with most). Sitting on the fence seems like the only option to me
Nexxo 30th September 2007, 20:30 Quote
Having used both for a while now, I must say that Vista feels a little, well, unfinished. Some simple tasks in XP take you the scenic route in Vista. To get .doc files associated with MS Word takes a registry hack, FFS. You have to turn off User Account security to stop it from asking, nay, nagging you for permission to do even the most simple tasks. And it will not let you save files in just any folder; daddy Vista knows best...

In Word 2007 saving a document template will not automatically switch to the right directory; it dumps them in the Documents folder. Good luck with getting Word to notice them and putting them in the right location.

Every change takes some getting used to, but this is more than just a change of habits. There are still some UI issues to iron out.
GoodBytes 30th September 2007, 21:30 Quote
I must agree with Nexxo, but personally I take in consideration that SP1 will take care of them (maybe not UAC and Office 2007, but those I can live), as I saw those and other problems being improved under RC1 and RC2 (yea it was worse).
wuyanxu 30th September 2007, 22:30 Quote
blah, had some hectic time with nVidia's driver and World in Conflict under Vista........ the performance is poor on my 8800GTS. read everywhere that Dx9 XP performance is very good on GTS320. i might even consider buying XP SP2 for my new computer just for WiC
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