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.

[john_r_perfect]

"I find that Vista is much slower, even with better components, than a comparably equipped XP machine. For a newer OS, that's unacceptable."

Why are you harping on XP and not 2000?

I think that the laziness of MS programmers resulted in a slower-than-it-should-be OS in Vista, but the statement that a new OS should always run faster... Pretty ridiculous IMO.

At work I'm in the position to decide when we move up from XP. At this point I'm waiting for Win7. Not because I dislike Vista, but because it's not worth the hassle or money, esp. w/ the Next One on the horizon. We were slow to leave Win 2000, we are slow to leave XP, and I can say pretty confidently that we'll be pretty slow to move up from Win7. (we actually have the more Win 2000 systems in our domain than we do Vista systems).

A side note: I don't get it when people complain about the slowness of Vista, and talk like it's nearly unbearable, then talk positively about running XP on EeePCs. ???

I ran Vista Business on a 1.6 GHz Core2 Duo w/ 1 GB of RAM, and was satisfied w/ the speed, 'cause I was used to running XP on 1.6 - 2.6 GHz P4s w/ 512 MB to 1GB RAM.

Anyway, there's my 1.5 cent(s)

Blessings,
JRP

www.jrptech.googlepages.com

[SteveW928]

@ john_r_perfect - "I ran Vista Business on a 1.6 GHz Core2 Duo w/ 1 GB of RAM, and was satisfied w/ the speed, 'cause I was used to running XP on 1.6 - 2.6 GHz P4s w/ 512 MB to 1GB RAM."

That's probably because a 1.6 GHz C2D is a considerably faster CPU. :o)

[tekwiz4u]

Look...2000 is a good operating system, but lets be real here. XP is the better product. Its faster then 2000 and it has improvements over it. So the next trasition will be from XP to Win7. Its the logical choice.

[catbiz17]

I really LIKED MS but with every OS upgrade there were more minus areas than plus areas. I don't think MS is a member of some evil conspiracy. They (MS) just act like they are the only game in town. I haven't been satisfied with Microsoft's OS since 98 was "updated." XP consistently crashed and VISTA--NO. I finally switched to MAC OS X and must run some MS stuff for my business. The MS programs and their Firefox browser are the only things that crash now. Maybe Microsoft will begin to realize they are not alone in the market. If not then Vista will be the best thing to happen to Apple since the ipod.

[yearstretch]

As a small software creation business owner I can definitely say that I won't buy Vista as it has nothing we 'need'.

Vista may have lots of pretty games graphics and social networking safety stuff and music stuff but none of that is of any extra use to my business whatsoever and so is not worth dollar one to me, which is the point that Balmer seems to have missed when he urges needless upgrades for his own profit line.

My business creates software (boring server hosted financial stuff that needs only a browser) and we use XP as it runs all the development and testing apps we need and at the lowest cost so even if Vista was a free upgrade we would still not waste time installing and testing it.

We have backup systems loaded with Windows 2000 and that?s still the most stable platform MS ever made.

All our machines are detuned to remove entertainment, graphics, screen enhancements, fonts, music, sound, screen savers, instant messengers and unused services etc. etc. etc. in fact everything that home users probably love is taken off to enhance performance and reliability.

What I would really like from MS is a proper minimum opsys build kit like VMS (from which Dave Cutler designed NT) so we could only include stuff we selected at core opsys build time to accurately fit our hardware and not over fit nor under fit our needs, but I guess that is only a distant dream?

Yes we did try Linux a while back but it has still not got the apps we need and with support still costs about the same as Windows anyway but without the massive user base.

Yes we do use IE most and FireFox next as they are the 2 most sold browsers.

No the Mac stuff is not a major option for most business as it still costs more than PC stuff, has less functionality and very odd styling aimed at trendy home users I guess.

Windows 7? Will we need it? Will it pay for its own upgrade costs? Time alone will tell.

(system programmer since 1969 and business owner since 1985)

[jachamp]

It's like a car salesman trying to sell you a Hummer when you just need a Civic. It's ridiculous. The Hummer gets bad gas mileage, it's a rough ride, and even the military doesn't want it just like Vista. XP on the otherhand is like Civic. It's good on gas, pleasant enough ride and though it doesn't come ready for the frontlines, it does exactly what I need to do an

[sullivanjc]

"More importantly, I find that Vista is much slower, even with better components, than a comparably equipped XP machine"

This is the main issue and the only new "features" I see to justify it is often unnecessary (and sometimes downright annoying) GUI changes. No thanks.

There's a very strong chance my next PC will be homemade from parts and running Ubuntu. I can count the reasons I "need" Windows on my PC on one hand now. I may just live without those.

[hassan_bin_sober]

Ballmer has his finger on the pulse of computer users across the world.
Ya Right! ...What world would that be?

[mark2257]

You do not have a clue. I run vista on my laptop with amd chip and my desktop with intel chip. I use adobe cs3 to edit large photo shoots. Vista performs much better than xp ever could. All you vista haters put that in you pipe and smoke it.

[tekwiz4u]

You're just upset that you spent money on Vista. Dont worry, you'll get a upgrade discount when you switch to Win7.

[snaffler]

All IT project purchases at my company go through me and we won't be going to Vista. We beta tested it and have tested it on different computers. It offers worse performance unless we spend a very significant amount of money to change out our entire user network to faster PCs. Even then, it is offers no new benefits over a locked-down XP SP3 computer. We won't even go to Windows 7 until it reaches SP1 level.

I have a Vista laptop at home and it runs about as well as the old 3.1 computers did back in the '90s. I will never buy another Microsoft laptop.

I prefer XP to Vista. Am I alone? No I don't think so! Great article Don!

30yrs of experience in the computer industry and I certainly don't have all the answers!

DOS was the best lol... and still need to use it behind the curtain of any windows.
Wang to Windows now that was fun.
But MS wouldn?t be the company it is today if they stuck or stick with any OS for lack of New Sales. DUH!

I turned down or stalled during each and every new OS brought out but MS has found ways to {change our minds} and I don't just mean Eye Candy.

Those of you in the repair & diagnostic part of this Industry are going to have a lot more thoughts on these changes than the average users cause they for the most part only have to learn how to navigate them and want that to be in simplest form they can get, as for the Administrators or Repair Tech they need the imbedded tools to keep them running in the form there staff and or clients use them to do their work or entertainment and so far Vista is one of the hardest and or slowest to accomplish these tasks [remember keep an open mind and look at the broadest examples not just the just the few end users]

I still work up DOS units for a few customers, reinstall ME for those who own only that license and explain to each and everyone of them not to expect to run/use today?s and future software or hardware and if they are comfortable with those limitations then more power to them while they save a buck.

I hate being forced into new operating systems but in my line of work it has been the only way to make a living, so most of you are right & wrong at the same time it just depends on what plane of this industry you survive on.

PC-Rock

[seamus]

You are right. I think Balmer's ego is trying to justify the decision to send Vista out to the real world. If the free market is supposedly the entrepreneur's bible, then he should read the writing on the tablets. People don't want Vista! Preliminary reports on Windows 7 aren't spectacular either. I wouldn't want to invest in a repackaged loser OS in this economic crisis. Linux may be a pain and not yet ready for prime time, but it is starting to look really good compared to Micro$oft's new products.

[TX-Sunset]

I use Vista at home and it is a decent OS. Though my home box is a powerhouse and can run it decently. I am an IT director where I work and I would have to invest at least $200-$300 on each of our work PCs to increase memory, storage and CPUs. And there is at least 5-10 PCs that we would have to scrap out completely as buying a new one would be cheaper then upgrading.

That cost on top of upgrading the Licenses from XP to Vista would make upgrading our company to Vista very expensive and not worth it.

As far as all the people bashing IE, it has it problems. If Chrome, Firefox or any of the other browsers commanded the market share that IE holds, it would be the target of malicious hackers as well. It is not that those applications are 100% bullet proof, it is that they are not used enough to draw the attention of the Hackers and Virus writers. Yes, IE is still the leader despite all the propaganda that everyone is rushing to Firefox or Chrome. Do not believe me, google Browser Usage. And, until Chrome or Firefox can start talking to Active Directory, there will be companies that will not switch to it simply because you can not authenticate on their intranet. Besides, after elevating the security a little by changing a few options, IE is just as secure as any other browser without having to go out and download extra addons or plugins.

[whois101]

I fully agree with the article. The call for Vista by end-users is extremely limited. I've even heard people say they are happy we're still using XP, while they are stuck with Vista at home on their retail machines. So that's even the opposite of what Ballmer is suggesting.

Moving over to Vista is not even possible, since the providers of two of our main enterprise applications won't provide clients for Vista. They aim for Win7. And they seem to be able to get away with it, because there is not a whole lot of demand for Mojave-glitter, Vista headaches.

[cmpbllman9]

Vista almost made me want to go back to millennium... i would use XP over Vista anyday. My labtop runs vista and crashes or freezes constantly. My other computer runs XP and i have had only one crash and a couple of freezes here and there.

[gsmiller88]

"In fact, it's far more likely that they would rather use something they know--XP."

Exactly! I would say more people are complaining because the new computers they're buying are running Vista and NOT XP.

It's bad enough my company employed Office 2007, I hope (and think they will) skip Windows Vista.

[Kurt_TZ_Fluscher]

I didn't buy vista but I'm using windows 7 ultimate 64-bit beta running firefox and its noticeably faster than xp sp3 32 bit. It helps 7 can use all my 6 gigs of ram because firefox can be a resource hog. I'm not sure if this will be in the final release but if the drivers you are trying to install like my wireless printer--are not made for 7 ,it will ask what drivers worked previously and emulate that os (xp in my case)--very stable too--I will be upgrading mostly though to stream movies to my 360.

[sundance808]

M$ doesnt get it.. the age of niftier OS is over.. sure it matters (security and performance wise) but not so much anymore for experience IMO.. its all about web applications now and the web browser.

[jcomputm]

I feel sorry for Microsoft about the situation with it's Vista Operating system.

[samason1]

Oh Lord! Yet another version of Windows on the way. XP works just fine for me. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable need to switch over again. I suppose it's only a matter of time before I have to leave XP behind given the swiss cheese architecture of anything created by Microsoft that always requires multitudinous hard drive hogging security updates until ultimately I have to replace my computer as well. Is this really what we call progress?

[Znatok]

until the Office market shifts, which is not gonna happen...

It's already happening, slowly, you may not notice it.

In my big corp with thousands of workspaces we evaluating Lotus Symphony (once IBM updated it to oo3 base) for our smaller subs.

I personally see couple of small businesses using google docs (no one just one year ago).

OO, while far from perfect, already installed for basic stuff on many machines around.

The only people who truly need MS office is corporate controllers, because of Excel only.

[jessiethe3rd]

Sure add in a few more applications to increase support costs and have zero standards across the organization... smart move eh? Lotus Symphony is a joke and Exchange and Outlook is by far the dominator. You should know this. Office comes cheap as OEM with system PCs... Google Docs is not robust enough and let's be honest - what real offline capability do you have? The Office market hasn't slightly shifted.

[SactoGuy018]

My big gripe about Windows XP is that it does not gracefully recover from a system crash. Despite all the griping about Windows Vista, at least with a program crash the system will recover far more gracefully, doing a very good job freeing up system resources once you close the offending program.