Comments on: False alarm over Windows support deadline
Microsoft quietly corrects Web posting saying support for XP Home, XP Media Center Edition would end Dec. 31.
Screenshots: Tweaked posting
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- China arrests thousands in Web porn crackdown
January 2, 2010 6:26 PM PST
- Application packaging for cloud computing: A proposal
January 2, 2010 4:56 PM PST
- When policemen are caught looking at Web porn
January 2, 2010 4:16 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
People buy XP will not turn around and buy Vista just because XP's one or two years old. Businesses might, but not home consumers. "Just say NO".
People will not continue to pay extreemely high prices for an operating system that will die shortly after it's predicesor is released simply because it will increase there total cost of ownership and they will be forced to have to start all over again with there development with the rolling out of a new OS.
If they were smart they would have realized that people are always going to complain an put them on a pedastool as long as they have the number one selling operating system. They should have released a consumer version of windows along with server 2003. I sure know they wouldn't have lost my interest.
I would love to say that by that time we can all switch to linux, but as far as I can tell the companies that make some of our software have no intentions of moving their software to linux in the foreseable future. Now before anybody tells me to find a replacement, I will tell you they don't make it yet.
Of course who know what will happen in two or three or four years. Microsoft may collapse and Windows becomes open source. Linux may give way to Mac on the PC platform. Some other obsure OS my come to power. Who knows.
People buy XP will not turn around and buy Vista just because XP's one or two years old. Businesses might, but not home consumers. "Just say NO".
People will not continue to pay extreemely high prices for an operating system that will die shortly after it's predicesor is released simply because it will increase there total cost of ownership and they will be forced to have to start all over again with there development with the rolling out of a new OS.
If they were smart they would have realized that people are always going to complain an put them on a pedastool as long as they have the number one selling operating system. They should have released a consumer version of windows along with server 2003. I sure know they wouldn't have lost my interest.
I would love to say that by that time we can all switch to linux, but as far as I can tell the companies that make some of our software have no intentions of moving their software to linux in the foreseable future. Now before anybody tells me to find a replacement, I will tell you they don't make it yet.
Of course who know what will happen in two or three or four years. Microsoft may collapse and Windows becomes open source. Linux may give way to Mac on the PC platform. Some other obsure OS my come to power. Who knows.
Microsoft now says support for XP Home will continue for two more years after Vista ships (until end of 2008). But, get this: support for XP Pro will continue for FIVE more years after that, SEVEN years total. (until end of 2013). This is why XP Pro is better. Sure, I'll upgrade to Vista, but for those people who can't (due to hardware limitations) it's nice to keep your machine safe while you keep using XP until the computer needs to be replaced. A lot of people bought new computers over the holidays and don't want to think about replacing them in the next couple of years. People who don't already have XP Pro on their machines -- because XP Home came installed -- CAN still upgrade to XP Pro, even if they can't upgrade to Vista.
Vista needs lots of RAM (minimum of 512MB) and a separate video card (probably 128MB or 256MB -- Microsoft hasn't said). Many computers sold today have "integrated" video cards and only 256MB RAM. RAM can be added, but some of the scurrilous computer manufactures don't even include AGP or PCI Express slots on the motherbaord for separate video cards (cough, Dell). My sister has a Dell like that. I can add more RAM for her, but not a video card. She's stuck with XP until she throws the computer away. However, I can upgrade her to XP Pro if she decides to keep it for more than 2 more years. I didn't buy the computer for her, her husband did. I just have to try to make it work.
You also said: "Vista needs lots of RAM (minimum of 512MB) and a separate video card (probably 128MB or 256MB -- Microsoft hasn't said). Many computers sold today have "integrated" video cards and only 256MB RAM. RAM can be added, but some of the scurrilous computer manufactures don't even include AGP or PCI Express slots on the motherbaord for separate video cards (cough, Dell)."
Vista has no requirement for a "separate" video card. To say otherwise is simply false. Vista has some new video capabilities which require more advanced video cards to enable but if you don't enable those advanced features Vista will still work fine on the older cards. In fact all laptops wouldn't be able to run Vista according to your statement. For the true requirements see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/entpguid.mspx#ECAA
(Warning: contains intense marketing speak, not for the easily fooled).
The truth is that most machines being sold today (and for the last year) have Vista capable video already. The memory requirements have again been raised but that's more because MS decided that with more and more people running machines that are full of nonsense programs using up memory that in order for those people to get good responsiveness from their systems they'd best have enough memory to support all those leeches.
Leeches, you ask? Yes, programs like Quicktime, Realplayer and even (to their shame) MS Office all install "background" programs in a misguided and frankly ignorant attempt to help their main program(s) load a half-second faster. Then we have all the programs that use a background task to perform an action that should be done using the scheduler instead. Why should you have background programs checking periodically for updates to things like Sun Java? Why wasn't that written to use the scheduler system to be triggered instead of adding their own whole boatload of code taking up precious system resources fulltime?
Most people would do well to examine their "System tray" icons and disable all the "background" programs there which aren't used very frequently or don't make sense. They'd find their systems run a whole lot faster once they've taken that simple step.
Dell is not going to worry about selling a PC today that won't run Vista tomorrow. Few of those cheap PC customers are going to rush out and buy Vista on launch day. By the time these low-cost consumers are going to need Vista their PC is going to be well below what the current low-end PC is.
When Dell sells PCs with Vista pre-installed the low end will likely NOT support the razzle dazzle features you are so worried about. So don't buy that low end PC, that's your choice. Dell is going to meet market demand and they don't care if you don't buy their $499 PC. Dell will happily sell you a $1,299 PC (LCD Monitor pictured sold separately) that meets your needs too.
Microsoft now says support for XP Home will continue for two more years after Vista ships (until end of 2008). But, get this: support for XP Pro will continue for FIVE more years after that, SEVEN years total. (until end of 2013). This is why XP Pro is better. Sure, I'll upgrade to Vista, but for those people who can't (due to hardware limitations) it's nice to keep your machine safe while you keep using XP until the computer needs to be replaced. A lot of people bought new computers over the holidays and don't want to think about replacing them in the next couple of years. People who don't already have XP Pro on their machines -- because XP Home came installed -- CAN still upgrade to XP Pro, even if they can't upgrade to Vista.
Vista needs lots of RAM (minimum of 512MB) and a separate video card (probably 128MB or 256MB -- Microsoft hasn't said). Many computers sold today have "integrated" video cards and only 256MB RAM. RAM can be added, but some of the scurrilous computer manufactures don't even include AGP or PCI Express slots on the motherbaord for separate video cards (cough, Dell). My sister has a Dell like that. I can add more RAM for her, but not a video card. She's stuck with XP until she throws the computer away. However, I can upgrade her to XP Pro if she decides to keep it for more than 2 more years. I didn't buy the computer for her, her husband did. I just have to try to make it work.
You also said: "Vista needs lots of RAM (minimum of 512MB) and a separate video card (probably 128MB or 256MB -- Microsoft hasn't said). Many computers sold today have "integrated" video cards and only 256MB RAM. RAM can be added, but some of the scurrilous computer manufactures don't even include AGP or PCI Express slots on the motherbaord for separate video cards (cough, Dell)."
Vista has no requirement for a "separate" video card. To say otherwise is simply false. Vista has some new video capabilities which require more advanced video cards to enable but if you don't enable those advanced features Vista will still work fine on the older cards. In fact all laptops wouldn't be able to run Vista according to your statement. For the true requirements see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/entpguid.mspx#ECAA
(Warning: contains intense marketing speak, not for the easily fooled).
The truth is that most machines being sold today (and for the last year) have Vista capable video already. The memory requirements have again been raised but that's more because MS decided that with more and more people running machines that are full of nonsense programs using up memory that in order for those people to get good responsiveness from their systems they'd best have enough memory to support all those leeches.
Leeches, you ask? Yes, programs like Quicktime, Realplayer and even (to their shame) MS Office all install "background" programs in a misguided and frankly ignorant attempt to help their main program(s) load a half-second faster. Then we have all the programs that use a background task to perform an action that should be done using the scheduler instead. Why should you have background programs checking periodically for updates to things like Sun Java? Why wasn't that written to use the scheduler system to be triggered instead of adding their own whole boatload of code taking up precious system resources fulltime?
Most people would do well to examine their "System tray" icons and disable all the "background" programs there which aren't used very frequently or don't make sense. They'd find their systems run a whole lot faster once they've taken that simple step.
Dell is not going to worry about selling a PC today that won't run Vista tomorrow. Few of those cheap PC customers are going to rush out and buy Vista on launch day. By the time these low-cost consumers are going to need Vista their PC is going to be well below what the current low-end PC is.
When Dell sells PCs with Vista pre-installed the low end will likely NOT support the razzle dazzle features you are so worried about. So don't buy that low end PC, that's your choice. Dell is going to meet market demand and they don't care if you don't buy their $499 PC. Dell will happily sell you a $1,299 PC (LCD Monitor pictured sold separately) that meets your needs too.
And for you Linux guys, make a distro for us that aren't IT techs. Dear Santa, I'd like a linux for gamers distro.
And for you Linux guys, make a distro for us that aren't IT techs. Dear Santa, I'd like a linux for gamers distro.
"GPU ? PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM)."
Separate video card will be required OR new chipsets that will handle the video requirements. That's why ATI and Nvidia are so prominently mentioned when you click on the link for GPU. Older intergrated video need not apply. Newer integrated video using newer chipsets just now coming out MIGHT work, but separate video card is the one Microsoft says WILL work.
"GPU ? PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM)."
Separate video card will be required OR new chipsets that will handle the video requirements. That's why ATI and Nvidia are so prominently mentioned when you click on the link for GPU. Older intergrated video need not apply. Newer integrated video using newer chipsets just now coming out MIGHT work, but separate video card is the one Microsoft says WILL work.
Oh well, such is life!
- Hmmm!
- by heystoopid January 15, 2006 10:46 AM PST
- Hmmm, M$ seems to be caught up in a mess of it's own making!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(86 Comments)Oh well, such is life!