Comments on: Windows XP's last hurrah

Although it will be supported and sold in limited fashion for some time to come, Monday marks the Microsoft operating system's last day as a widespread option on store shelves and new PCs.

[magusat999]

I dont want a Mac, I don't want Linux or Ubuntu either - believe me, I used to be a Mac "tree hugger" a long time ago - before Apple had that bankruptcy incident and to this date has never fully recovered (developer support, backwards compatibility, and we used to get lifetime warantees on Mac computers - which they tried to re-nig on during their "reconstruction"). But this isn't abotu Apple - this is about Vista and XP - which incidently are BOTH Microsoft products, although that's hard to believe, the way we talk about them - and especially the way Microsoft treats their own creations!

I have three [running] computers. Two of them XP, and one with Vista. My Vista laptop is more powerful than my two XP desktops, and I'm not complaining about the power - but I thought i would be able to put that power under the control of an OS that could fully utilize it. My laptop is a Compaq (HP) Presario Notebook PC, A931NR, nice 17" screen, 3megs ram, Pentium Dual core 1.73ghz (just shy of the 1.83ghz requires by most recent games, dammit!). I tried to dual-boot with XP AND I tried replacing the OS with XP. Failed in both cases. The reason - not because XP wouldn't run the system... but rather HP has decided not to allow it's customers to choose to upgrade to Vista. They made sure of it by not releasing, writing or providing drivers for XP. Therefore I am FORCED to use Vista. I guess I am one of those Vista users in the statistics, even thought I'd much rather be using XP!

I don't see how this is any different from the many lawsuits MS faced for forcing PC makers to install MS products, or the ones just involving forcing customers to use Explorer - remember those cases, that MS LOST, BTW. Why are they allowed to force us to use a particular piece of software now, if it was deemed illegal not too long ago?

I have no use for Vista and cannot see the benefit in it. It seems like ever since Win98, we get more taken away with each OS. Remember DOS? How about the ability to install multiple versions of Windows on the same drive (Win95 and 98)? Now we lose hardware acceleration, we are stuck with the kindergarten DX10 (go to dxdiag and see what I mean). Can you run 3dsmax on Vista - NO. What does that say for the "new and improved OS"?

Security is not why I buy an OS - that's why I buy a FIREWALL, ANTI-VIRUS, and ANTI-TROJAN. One of the best firewalls are free anyway - what do I need in Vista that is so secure? I STILL need to install those protective programs - and guess what, you have to TURN OFF Microsoft's similar security apps so that the third party ones will run... so much for Vista security. It's all a bunch of hooplah.

Vista's interface isn't all that either. Windowblinds does a better job, uses less resources, and comes with thousands of optional themes. Microsoft doesn't even know how to SPELL "themes". the only time you get a different theme from Microsoft is if you buy another product - like a Zune or their Media pack (which should come with the OS already, if you ask me)... oh.. how special. No reason there to buy Vista.

Vista requires too much power, uses too much resources, is not backwards compatible, performs too slowly - but the most glaring reason against it is nobody asked for it. The market was looking for two more service packs for XP - not an OS that throws our prior investment out of the window (pun intended). There was a lot of hype over the new XP service packs - but MS cut many od the features that we thought we were getting out. They said we were going to get directx 10 - that was scrapped. We were supposed to get the Aero interface for XP - that didn't happen. Sp3 was supposed to bring XP very close to Vista's features - but MS denied us that because they found out that the Vista program would be DEAD if they did that. So now we have this great OS - XP - just about to languish for no good reason, except that Microsoft wants to line it's pockets. I don't see what the problem is with MS - in either case, it's still a MS product, and they still make money off of the sales.

So how about they stop playing games and give us what we want? They can either make XP updated or make Vista more like XP. But the path they are on right now just isn't going to do it.

[magusat999]

I just have to say one more thing on this subject. Anything that is "more advanced" should more easily handle the tasks of it's predecessors. What you see on the screen of Windows is not the OS; it is the graphical representation of the OS, the gui. The GUI should not inhibit the OS from communicating with hardware or software, because the actual OS is just he basic machine code of the computer. Are we to believe that it is "advanced" that these new, ultrapowerful CPUs are too stupid to communicate with hardware built years before? Is that what we call advancement?

The reason Vista requires newer hardware is because it was purposely built to lock out certain technologies. It was crippled on purpose, and because the hardware it requires had yet to be built we were told that it is too "advanced" for the former systems (like our XP machines). This is by design, not performance.On a machine level, any device can easily communicate with another. But if you design it to lock out - then that will be the result.

Vista is not advanced. An advanced OS would have hardware acceleration, would work with any hardware you throw at it, would not be hampered or controlled by it's GUI. It would work with any software as well, no matter how old, because it would keep the routes open whereby the software could communicate properly and display the correct output (results). This is very possible - but not probable, because of greed and many technologies being tied up in the Patent office. If it weren't for the restrictive nature of our industry and rights - the "Ultimate OS" could be made - but that's impossible given our current atmosphere.

[frustum]

I agree with the guy who said "bucks bucks bucks". That's exactly what this is about, what it's been about for the last 20 years and what it will be about: Microsoft and any other company is in business to make $$$...PERIOD. No money, no business. Are they looking to please? Absolutely if you happen to be a stock holder. They host the majority of computers on the planet so why would anything that Apple does have any effect? Many of these comments use Apple's history as the de facto standard solution that could fix the MS/VISTA problem that everyone is complaining about. There's something that no one seems to point out though: Windows does not require a Microsoft computer to run on. Can Apple say that? Not if you read the system requirements for their OS and considering it's illegal to install their OS on anything other than Apple hardware, well this speaks volumes and seals their fate that they will never have a majority of market share. They are dead in the gate and yet they claim to be catching up in the race...obviously some of you have been fooled, are too high up in the stands (cheap) to see, or need a take the lens cover of that set of binoculars. With this in mind, why exactly would Microsoft do ANYTHING different OTHER THAN continue on its quest of world domination? Why in the world would Microsoft continue to provide XP when Microsoft specifically wants you to purchase a more expensive and more buggy Vista? As long as Microsoft continues on with compatibility, we have no choice because Apple is not a legitimate choice for many of us. They are guaranteed to sell Vista and you can thank Apple (in part) for that. Heck, anyone could brag about the swift OS updates and shifts that Apple accomplished, but when considering they did it on their own hardware, it just doesn't seem as great an accomplishment as many of you seem to believe.

There's another side to the multi-faceted (should I say multi-core) computer crisis we are facing now and in the near (possible long term?) future: Intel will be pushing the concept (onto to not only the developers but more importantly you) of not only 10s or 100s, but 1000s of cores. Talk about a rip in the b-hole...here we have the latest and greatest technology (which was inevitable on its approach - it's not because of inovation - it WAS inevitable) and what do we get with it when combined with the newest OS from Microsoft? Poorer performance than what can be had when mated to a 7 year old OS...Is this just bad luck? So what does Intel say about it? They spout off to the masses that it will be THE DEVELOPERS problem because the developers should be thinking in terms of 1000+ threaded applications. I suppose if I worked at Intel I might go along with that approach also since this basically throws the problem back at software which after all this time will be mandated by the hardware! Say what? Since when does hardware mandate software? Did I miss something? Are we living in the bizzaro world all of a sudden? You betcha and it's all about the bucks because multi-core is the rage and yet we will still not be all that excited (some will feel a little let down actually) about that new hardware we just spent $$$ for when we come to the realization that the software just fails to exploit the said hardware (if you can even find software that takes any advantage at all). And who will be to blame? The software makers of course for their apparant lack of development skills. I feel sorry for that future newbie programmer that gets told he has to go debug some 1000+ threads...it's just not going to happen folks...not now, not ever...period. For that to happen you need to have a computer for a brain and anyone who knows about software development would agree. Will the masses be convinced that it's possible? Absolutely they will be because they're junkies and need their fix and someone to blame it on when they just can't get that high like they anticipated, all thanks to an ingenius marketing scheme care of Intel. Unfortunately for us, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, and all those other corporate megagiants will continue to convince us that we need their products to fullfill our lives while they fill their pockets with our ever diminishing dollars. Don't fall for it people...how's that iPod doing to increase your production at work? How's that spreadsheet in terms of speed when compared to 5 years ago? When was the last time your boss noted how fast you were able to finish that document thanks to the recent advances in hardware? Is that blackberry actually taking time away from you are giving it back? You're junkies and you've been convinced that it's okay to be dependent...slavery is in your future if it hasn't caught up to you already.

[Brian16661]

Maybe your overlooking the overall reason XP sales are being withheld. I have never really used XP until about a week ago. Before XP I used 2000 and then upgraded to Vista. I moved and got a new computer with XP and have received error after error. I beleive that XP was probably a good OS for its time, but either it got to fermiler to hackers or it wasn't able to keep up with the capabilities of modern software change is not bad. Where Tashman states that short goals for a quick buck. I beleive that Mr. Gates is not worried about money, but the development of further technology. Like every other era humans have progressed through they don't dawn on fixen something, but rather improve it until it is stable.