Comments on: What's so bad about XP?

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says companies need to ditch XP for Vista. Don Reisinger is wondering what he has against XP.

[Mr. Dee]

This coming from someone who's default OS of choice is OS X? Sorry, but you don't have a say on this topic. Windows Vista works, its just that peoples early reception of the OS continues to haunt regardless most issues have been resolved in the first few months of its release.

[bdaughtry]

Wrong. Put XP & Vista on two equivalent systems side by side, and XP will blow Vista away.

Vista = AOL = Internet Explorer. Nothing says "I'm clueless" more.

[tm_anon]

I've used every version of Windows from 95 up with the exception of Windows ME. I used Vista just to look at some photographs, it lost the photo chain.

The touchpad wasn't very responsive, taking several swipes to get from the middle of the screen to the bottom (yes, I've used a touchpad before). The controls took time to operate and when the person who owned the computer brought the photo list back up, it took several seconds to reload. Several other times I'd watch him trying to a program to run or trying to bring up files while I worked with a newer model computer running Windows XP. I'd bring up a file a second after he started to bring one up and my file would be ready first. He'd be bringing up a photo or a short list and I'd be bring up a comparable list and XP just worked that much faster.

I switched to Ubuntu in order to keep from having to deal with the forced software upgrade cycle that comes hand in hand with a forced hardware upgrade. I was running XP on this hardware and it ran nicely, now I run Ubuntu on it and it runs faster and more smoothly.

I'm of the conclusion from my observations and the little experience I've had with Vista on new hardware that peoples perceptions are dead on. It never should have been brought out. MS should have worked on Windows 7, gotten all the bugs out, tested and retested it, made sure all hardware was compatible with in-house testing or by sending out its own quality assurance agents to do testing on those machines being sent out.

You may think it's a bit excessive to do so, just take a look at how poorly Vista is doing in the market today.

Minimize risk and maximize profits by creating a quality product and making sure that product is seen in the best light. That's something MS really needs to adopt for its products before it's too late.

[rsbrodie]

With Windows 7 due to be available within the year, I can't imagine how it's fiscally responsible--particularly in this economy--to waste money on upgrading to Vista. I'm not trying to make any statement about Vista's quality, but rather what makes economic sense.

Even more so if you have to buy a new computer to get Vista, you will save waiting until you can buy a computer with Windows 7 installed (or at least wait until the upgrade to WIndows 7 from Vista is free). Why buy the computer and then have to pay for a WIndows 7 upgrade?

Even if the Windows 7 update is free, there is still the cost of your time to upgrade to (or migrate to a clean copy of) Windows 7. If it's not a free upgrade, then you have the additional expense of the purchasing the upgrade. In an enterprise, you have to consider the licensing and labor costs multiplied by the number of computers involved. You should also consider the impact on the users. Even the best organized computer upgrades impact their productivity.

The only advantage I can see of upgrading to Vista now (unless you have a specific need) is to increase Microsoft's income.

[BigGuns149]

It isn't uncommon for business to skip versions of software whether the vendor is Microsoft or not. There are some exceptions, but very few pieces of software have enough changes between one version and another to justify even the upgrade price for a lot of users.

I knew a lot of businesses and organizations that jumped from NT to XP bypassing 2000 and there will no doubt be a lot of businesses particularly those that bought machines in 2006 that will bypass Vista. If you buy a decent machine you can reasonably get it to last 4 years if not more. Why replace a computer that is still working fine? Most smart businesses aren't going to speed up their upgrade cycle just to upgrade the OS because there are rarely enough benefits to justify the cost.

[supoman]

Simple. You can' t charge people to own XP more than once!!!

[Ted Miller]

Why is it that nobody in Microsoft listens to us users? Why is it that they seem to always have their heads in the cloud?

[Hunnter2k3]

Because Microsoft only ever seem to go for the shareholders, it seems.

They want people to update to Vista, so they get a "discount" on Windows 7.
And to be perfectly honest, the only reason they are probably doing this is because they are too lazy to support upgrades from their most used OS, instead of the most recent OS.
Regardless of Microsoft's beliefs, nobody (smart) is going to do it, so they will have to support upgrades from XP or face even further losses.
Yet somehow, they just don't seem to see such a simple concept. Either support the userbase, or they will go elsewhere, or stick with that they already have.
Nobody needs a "gaming rig" to type out business meetings, or program, or manage spreadsheets.

[bdaughtry]

Cause that's where Google is......and MicroSoft is scared to take their eyes off that threat.

[mgc0cnet]

So what's bad about XP? Perhaps the price tag?

I guess people will increasingly find the value of switching to linux especially while thinking of migrating to another OS, the learning curve & potential pain you'll get from your users, & the maintenance costs...

[ostripper]

I still see this argument (futile) between XP vs. Vista/7 go on and on..on.. on.. I DO have the money
to build/ purchase new systems and even have the pirated version of Vista sp2 with all the "fat"
trimmed out (non- essential services shut down,decapitated UAC,modified Group policy,etc).

I just built a new Vista capable for a family member (2gig 800DDR2, C2D 2G, GT8600- fast) but
after installing vista SLOW, installed my "trimmed" XP SP3 it was like a breath of fresh air..
I also have trouble with audio ASIO drivers and HT theater dual screen use with Vista (that is
what it is supposed to do better, isn't it) So the hardware issue doesn't seem to fly.. It takes
2ghz 2 core systems on a crippled vista to even approach a lowly legacy P4 on good old XP.

You need a "gaming rig" just to get the same business productivity on vista. The ease of
restoring the computer was an issue to , a ghost restore of Vista barely fit on a DVD (3.9 G)
the XP3 i'm using now has it's restore disk on CD (608MEG).. I don't need all the
"eyecandy" in vista (not at the expense of X4 "bloat") 3rd party software can give more "features"
in XP than M$ and Vista bloatware could ever imagine at 1/10th the overhead..The NVIDIA driver
for Vista is 500megs in size (I guess bloat is an infectious desease).. NERO the same (new 9XX
is 500meg vs. the 6.6 I use is 78meg ,3X faster ..burns the same disk)

All these software companies just don't "get it" if I have to mess around with vista for hours
to just get in the same ballpark as XP..why bother.. not real groundbreaking features that
can not be added to XP with 3rd party solutions and the cost/versions ,all BS!!

As far as security... Do the brute force approach... save all work on 2nd HDD's/partitions,
treat windows as temporary media , get GHOST 2003.. at first sign of virii or malware
restore windows in 35 seconds..done..

I guess I'm just a spoiled XP user used to XP performance on Vista READY systems,
I'm hooked.. and vista just can't cut it...

[Nimda_11]

^^^^^^ So dumb he's dangerous

[t8]

In your dreams Ballmer.

Will stick with XP, Linux, and Google apps.

Thanks all the same.

[docster87]

When I bought a Windows OS to use the BootCamp feature on Mac OS, I bought XP rather than any of the Vista flavors. I knew my favorite DOS game would work with XP and I knew some of my Windows only hardware would work with XP. Even though Vista was newer and basically same price as XP, I had too much fear to buy Vista then, and even now I would still buy XP over Vista. Now my fear has lessened but the resources required for Vista just to run just doesn't make sense, then and now.

[rungag]

"If you deploy a 4- or 5-year-old operating system today, most people will ask their boss why the heck they don't have the stuff they have at home," Ballmer told the publication."

Hang on; how much time did MS spend between XP and Vista? Something like 4 or 5 years...?

[ofmyony]

Microsoft should just have an enterprise version, don't lock it down to one operating system. Companies should not be forced to upgrade their systems every 3 to 5 years. I feel that Microsoft should know how long a computers hardware should be good for and make the enterprise os work for every piece of old hardware for as long as possible. If for instance someone says hey my hardware is still good say sorry but we no longer support your hardware sincerely Microsoft.

[Denny100]

Why go to VISTA? Good question...
Most Fortune 1000 companies wait at least 1 year before "upgrading" to new systems (OSs...). Why? Don't need cannot afford the person hours to combat incompatibilities nor the $$$$$ for new hardware (e.g. printers - the older printers are not upgraded with the appropriate drivers to have the hardware work with the new systems. People, we are not talking about $1000 for 1 piece of equipment - think about multi-national systems with thousands of users needing hundreds/thousands of printers (and other equipment). Think about the roll-out costs, hardware, software (some of the legacy systems will be incompatible), training...

MS & company must think that their users (including major firms) are stupid.

The only demand for VISTA is that sponsored (marketed) by MS & company!

Yes, their is some demand for VISTA - however, I submit that this demand is by (primarily) new users or users without established business (including personal business). There is little or no need for the "bells, whistles, tinsel..." (Let's not forget those who thrive on living on the "bleeding edge of MS technology".)

Give me XP (Liberty) or give me VISTA (death-nah, that's too drastic)!!!!

Solution: MS should give us the $$$$ to upgrade our HW/SW to meet their (MS's) new requirements.

[answrtek]

There is nothing wrong with XP. It works, Its steady, it performs everyday, and yes someday, like any older piece of any type of equipment the parts will wear out on the computer. The code will live on forever, but sooner or latter the boards and circuits will break down, it is inevitable.

The techies among us will tell everybody until they are blue in the face that it is ancient, and old, and decripit and dying and anybody who leeps using it is nuts, buts thats because they have to have new and improved and it makes them feel better to say mocking things and act superior.

I've even had a few of them tell me to shut up because they didn't like what I had to say.

Thats OK, I laugh at haters.

Most of the time , the techies rant as bad as the hater morons who have nothing to add to the conversation, except their excellent command of the language.

I say when and if I buy new machines for my home and business I'll probably go towards W7, I've looked at it and like it a lot, especially the improved taskbar and the UAC.

For now though and in the immediate future, I'm sticking with what works now, not staking everything on Ballmer telling everybody this is the way to go. Heck , thats his job, if it were me I'd tell you that too.

The other thing thats always mentioned is how the support cycle will end. Phooey. The internet lives on forever, long gone are the days where I have to depend upon Redmond to fix any of my computer issues. They are'nt much help anyhow, unless you use the knowledge base.

The part of MSFT that took the beating last time and will take it again this time is the marketing department. They have done a poor job in the past in managing their own message and they are starting off on the wrong foot again with a very poor explanation of the sku versions and upgrade programs.

Such is life.

[gannobd9]

Why does anyone listen to Steve Ballmer after this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

The man is incompetent.

[moeriscus]

Why on earth would anyone wade through the costly and laborious process of upgrading to Vista, with Windows 7 waiting just around the corner?

I agree whole-heartedly with the "Vista is a slow resource hog" comments. I'm running Vista on a dual core system with 3 GB of RAM, and it's noticeably slower than my old Windows XP-based AthlonXP with 1 GB of RAM. That should not happen.

[BHCS]

XP will stay for a long time at most of the medical practices I know of as there are lots of vert-market med apps that are NOT compatible with Vista (or OSX, Linux, etc). And given the security inside and at the edges of these networks, the mainly minor security diffs don't mean much.

[jessiethe3rd]

Healthcare ISVs will switch when Microsoft cuts support - they'll began phasing out support because as much as they love to sell their over-priced, over-inflated healthcare management solutions they love to protect their bottom line... paying MS expensive fees to support an OS will not cut it in the long haul.

ISV Software providers are slow to adopt but you can get around this by putting the application in a Softgrid application virtualization and pushing only essential components down... either that or stick it in a TS / Citrix enviroment and avoid the challenges all together. Personally the application virtualization road is fantastic as it allows one to focus on patching also on one base server and the user can pick up the application and unplug from the network completely.

[jsedlak119]

While the B man certainly has an interest in getting rid of XP and selling Vista, I totally do not enjoy having to go into work and working on legacy (XP) systems. The Windows 7 Beta, and in fact Vista itself run better on my 5 year old laptop than XP runs on the dual core Athlon machines at work. My productivity also is increased by using Vista.

Files are easier to find, programs easier to run. While the changes might not be so visible to the average user, Vista has made my life easier and better. And that is all I ask for in the end.

[anilinupload]

If someone from Microsoft will ask Balmer that he want Mac at office because he is using it at home, will he allow that ?

[gggg sssss]

What if I use a Wii at home?

[Nimda_11]

I don't think I've seen more posters that are completely full of poop.

1. That being said, Balmer needs to go, or just ****.

2. XP is obsolete, it's a piece of crap and you know it. Anyone who's spent time formally lookin at Vista knows the writing is on the wall for XP, not because Vista was spectacular but because you can see where Microsoft is taking the OS and it is good.

3. Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 will become XP/2003's worthy successors.

4. If you're a Windows IT person, and you don't know why Vista is better, get a new line of Work.

[bdaughtry]

If you're an idiot and don't know it, I will tell you. ;-)

[PrivettP]

I would say the basic question is what software or additional functions would businesses have in spending additional money to switch to Vista? Why do businesses need to buy more RAM and stronger processors.

Although I have been told Vista has changed and improved from the time I tried using it a year after it was released for use, I was so desperate to have computer that runs, I purchased a mac and added XP using bootcamp. Maybe there was a time when Microsoft could use its customers to beta test their software after it's formally released. But now there is competition in the OS market.

When people like me call MS and ask for help in using their OS because it's within their service period and told HP, who knows nothing about Vista, is the only people who will help me, I knew then to avoid Vista and return my computer. 20 versions 20 prices frankly I don't have the time to research and play 20 questions.

I'm not ever going to go through that living hell again. Do I hate MS? No, because despite having a Mac I still use XP. I hate the way it treated me and the lack of information it gave a long with its insistence nothing was wrong and I was the minority that was complaining-all because they were forcing manufacturers to use Vista. As a lifetime MS user, this happens too many times.

Even now, two years later, Vista uses 6 times the RAM it originally contended was necessary to run the same software XP can run using 500 MB. Since Windows 7 is suppose to be what Vista was suppose to be without the bugs and is due next year, why would anyone in their right mind want to even try Vista?

MS has never been able to release an OS without having its software ready to go. Nor has it been able to innovate. There is no software that takes full advantage of the of the Duo core technology except gaming, let a long quad core. Vista needed to be a 64 bit OS that could be backwards compatible with XP and have extras that improve functionality beyond direct 10 X. The concept of a media center is interesting and if it worked properly and platforms worked fully, would, believe it or not, give it a long up on Apple OSX.

Windows 7 or Vista II right now that multi media concept needs to become reality and its searching needs to improve and become more efficient With it's media play and explorer becoming more integrated. Something needs to be done to make the new OS be obviously better than XP and at a reasonable price. If MS doesn't intend to provide service to its products, it should understand a higher level of quality is expected in its products. MS has allowed Open Source to catch up and give it a run for its money. From the beta versions I've seen for Window7, I don't think it will also do anything more or more efficiently than XP

Technology wise, you need a minimum of 2.0MHZ for film editing and with the current applications out there, a average Duo processor is more than enough to suit 99% of users. Unless intel gts more seriously involved with graphics and multimedia, I don't see a major advantage it can provide to PC users.

[mfehan]

I agree with this article. I work for a manufacturing company and 80% of the software that we use here (NC Software and Design Software) are not even available for vista. Maybe that is the fault of the companies that write the software BUT that still prevents me from upgrading. I for one will have to wait out the upgrade to Vista and transition to Windows 7 when the compatible versions of our 3rd party software are available.