Microsoft Taking Official Petitions to Keep XP Alive

[badass]

so don't

but this is about people who aren't insisting that they should be able to keep xp installed (because, um, they can & do)

it's people who want xp to be actively sold as a new product. and that's what i can't agree with. don't upgrade your system to vista (i'm not, for the reasons you cite), but moaning because you can't buy xp anymore?

waaaaaa, i can't buy c64 games anymore! woe is me! etc.

Exactily. XP needs to be stopped being sold as a new OS. The sooner that happens the sooner any companies making software that is still in use and doesn't work under vista will need to make their software properly.

IIRC if someone made software for NT3.5 properly, it will still work on Vista

[dangel]

IIRC if someone made software for NT3.5 properly, it will still work on Vista

Mmmmm probably not. I did dev work on NT 3.5 and NT 4 - they were quite different beasts and it was pretty annoying.

NT 3.5 came with a loverly Windows 3.11-a-like UI.

[manwithnoname]

I'm still plodding along with windows 2000 at home (and my back up pc has windows 98).

Personally I don't care when XP reaches EOL, but where I work is a different matter. It was a nightmare when we had to ditch NT and move to XP (not sure why my department missed out on windows 2000). MS will need to be careful as a lot of applications we have at work are browser based, so the the OS life time get too small we might consider an OS that just has browser support - unlikely but MS need to be careful

When does MS have the EOL date for XP penciled in? It can't be any time soon ...

[educatedfool]

When Vista 64 is working properly with the majority of what I own then I'll buy a new hard drive and get the OEM version of that. Until then I'm happy enough on XP Pro

[directhex]

When does MS have the EOL date for XP penciled in? It can't be any time soon ...

Mainstream Support Retired 14/04/2009
Extended Support Retired 08/04/2014

after Mainstream ends,
* no more changes to features
* no non-security patches

[manwithnoname]

Mainstream Support Retired 14/04/2009
Extended Support Retired 08/04/2014

after Mainstream ends,
* no more changes to features
* no non-security patches

As I suspected I didn't think EOL would be any time soon. I guess I'll be using XP at work for another 4-5 years,

If I get a new PC I get vista,as mentioned in the tread if you spend money on new hardware why not on new software. A usable computer is software and hardware together, never understood why people complain when their very old hardware does run their very new software and vice versa. (I'm running oldish software on oldish hardware - it works)

[shaithis]

I work in the legal sector and we are only just about to roll XP out to 5000 PCs lol

Vista was talked about for around a nanosecond and dismissed immediatly, so no other reason then its "newness".

XP support will continue for quite some time, petition or not and more so for corporates with MS support agreements.

[DataMatrix]

Oh thanks for the 0870 number micro****!

[Saracen]

Because... That Smoothwall install is *still supported* - it hasn't gone EoL, it's not in extended/paid only support. When the hardware eventually does fail I'll probably replace it with something built from scratch running FreeBSD.

But that's kinda circular. If the only reason you'd change Smoothwall is that it's gone EoL, then it suggests that it's doing it's job. And, if it's doing it's job, you wouldn't want it going EoL just because someone wanted to sell you a new version. That's precisely my viewpoint over XP. It's doing it's job, so why mess with it. And those corporates I mentioned look at it the same way - they've done all the testing etc with XP and rolled out the systems. Why change it all unless there's a sound business reason for doing so. And, so far at least, there isn't.

Well to be fair, most of our hardware WAS fast enough until they introduced us to lotus notes and McCrappy viruschecker To Vista's credit it's made notes load really quickly - so much so that people actually mention it with an air of awe. Such is the power of notes.

Well, that might (or might not) be a good enough business reason. It's for each company to evaluate.

But yes, corporates are a completely different issue and typical cycle years after the major release date. I don't see that as being any different now as to when XP was released though and just depends on where you corporate is with their IT rollouts/plans.

Probably not, no. The principle and process are the same.

What I'm saying (and I really wasn't having a go at you) is that it's the noisy minority running round screaming about their beloved XP that's getting annoying - and if that spills over into MS spending resources on a dead-duck OS that's not a good thing.

Well, yes, again. But not all of us that aren't interested in Vista are running around screaming about it. For instance, by comments in this thread weren't initiated by me advocating XP, but responding to directhex asking why XP won't just die. The reason is that there's still a lot of people that want it, for one reason or another. And it isn't just because we're luddites. It's because there is a cost to upgrading, and each of us (and each company) has to evaluate that cost and weigh it against benefits. If the argument doesn't come out in favour of upgrading (if "up" is the right way to put it, maybe "newgrading" would be better) then there's going to be a demand for XP, which is why it won't die - people still want to buy it ..... and for good reasons.

Which begs the question of when an OS is a "dead duck", doesn't it? If it was a dead duck just because MS wants us all to buy their new OS, then it ain't exactly dead, is it? If there's still a demand from users, then it isn't dead. If the benefits were sufficient, there wouldn't be a demand from users.

What I'm saying (and I really wasn't having a go at you) is .....

I'm not looking to accuse anyone of having a go. But there is a rather patronising tone running through several posts in this thread. It's not what any one individual has said, but the tone. So the following are examples of that tone, and should not be seen as me selecting individuals ...

in 2008, there's desperation to stick with an OS released in 2001. because it's... i dunno. more comfortable? people are "used" to it? i mean, nobody in their right minds would describe xp as in any way "perfect", yet they're adamant that they never want to see any more money ever spent on improving operating systems ever again?

i really don't get it. what's so goddamn special about xp?

People in general dislike change, it takes them out of their comfort zone.

I'm with Directhex on this one, hardware changes and so does software. I can't see what the gripe with Vista is really. It feels pretty comfortable to use and hasn't caused me any problems in the time it has been on my system.

Can't keep holding onto XP, think it was said that support would origionally end 2010, thats another 2 years for Microsoft to get Vista as good if not better than XP.

So, directhex asked why it wouldn't die. People then make the above-type comments. But it's not about "holding on" or "gripes with vista", or "comfort zones". I'm sure there are people that are set in their ways and won't change unless forced to. They'd still have black and white TVs if they could. But that doesn't mean that everyone that isn't jumping on the Vista bandwagon is either just in their comfort zone or that they're moaning about it. Many of us are quite content to keep using what we're using for as long as it's doing what we need. And, as I've explained, there are good reasons for that attitude.

Look back at the start of the thread. SiM posted about the notion that MS might actually be listening to users, and hex asked why XP wouldn't "just die". I'm explaining why it won't .... or might not .... yet. MS would not be taking this attitude, they would not be prepared to even consider extending XP if they weren't getting serious pressure. And, though it's just a guess, my bet is that that pressure is coming from hardware vendors who are finding it hard (or impossible) to sell Vista into many of those lucrative large corporates, because ANY change in OS has cost implications, and so far the case for Vista is far from being made.

Maybe XP has it's fanboys who won't change, whatever. Just as Vista has it's fanboys, who love it, regardless. But a lot of us are more analytical than that. As I said right back at the start, if anyone can come up with a convincing reason, I'll change. Businesses say exactly the same thing - what's the benefit and does it justify the cost? By and large, the answer is that for all that there are improvements, they don't justify the cost. Which is why it won't "just die" quite yet.

[Tumble]

There is a kind of pattern here... look back a few years when NT4 was the system of choice in the business world... 2000 comes along and there's hardly any drivers for it, and it's patchy.... it starts getting a bit more support, people start writing stuff for it within the year and lo! XP is on the horizon...

Seems it's going the same way with Vista - XP is firmly the choice of business workstations, running off 2003 servers - yes, Vista is starting to get more support and drivers etc and people are adopting it more and more, but Windows 7 is now on the horizon, only a couple of years since Vista first hit the shelves... How long was XP the "norm" before Vista was announced?

Think I may wait until 7 to be perfectly honest, unless they can do an SP2 style fix on Vista - I've had nowt but problems with everything I've tried to set up on it

[mikkri]

Just ordered Vista Premium OEM for my brand-new DIY PC. Hope it won't be as bad as some people say. By the way, without 64bit you are not going to have 4GB+ of RAM. So face it - we are going to live with Vista pretty soon. Or go and get Linux and forget about Microsoft and that special attention you get from all hardware manufactures.

Cheers.

[Saracen]

A lot of machines don't need 4GB, let alone more. Those that do need it, or think they need it, or just want it, may well go Vista. But a lot of machines don't need it, especially in the corporate world, and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to those machines in use.

[aidanjt]

Other than your work and ability to find stuff in super-dense filesystem hierarchies, because unlike XP, indexing actually works on Vista, as well as many other neat cravats. Seriously, Vista RTM was a *LOT* more polished off than XP RTM was. And if you do more than picking your nose and typing letters all day, 4GB or more memory can easily be used productively.

[chuckskull]

4GB ram on vista made a huge difference for me, before I got it I was still using XP for games. With it, the frame rates aren't quite as high as XP, but the difference just isn't noticeable. As always 4GB seems high end now, but in no time at all it'll become the de facto standard, just as 2GB is now, and 1gig was before it.

[Splash]

Which begs the question of when an OS is a "dead duck", doesn't it? If it was a dead duck just because MS wants us all to buy their new OS, then it ain't exactly dead, is it?

Is W2k a "Dead Duck", and why? Answers on a postcard please.

[peterb]

Is W2k a "Dead Duck", and why? Answers on a postcard please.

One of my PCs still uses W2K - and it does what it needs to and runs the applications that I can't run on any of the other machines that all run Linux.

However, MS's biggest user base are the corporates, and a corporate network, running (say 10,000) computer isn't going to shell out (say) £300K (assuming they get OEM licenses at a discount) with all the attendant rollout costs, application testing etc, even assuming that the existing hardware will take it. If the hardware needs replacing, then add (say) another £2.5M (25/machine) to that price, plus the rollout costs etc and it starts adding up. Amnd most of those 10,000 machines will do nothing more strenuous than word processing, Spreadsheet and presentations. A few in a graphics department might run something a little more advanced, but if the current OS and applications are coping, why change for the sake of it? If it isn't going to increase productivity - it isn't go to be done.