Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Aug 2007 21:38 UTC, submitted by flanque
Windows Microsoft has had to create a new build of Windows XP Professional for computer makers because the six-year-old operating system's continued popularity has nearly exhausted the supply of product activation keys. The new build, dubbed SP2c, includes no fixes or feature changes, but was created simply to address the shrinking pool of product keys. XP Pro SP2c, which has been released to manufacturing, will be made available to OEMs and system builders next month, said Microsoft.
Order by: Score:
MadRat
Member since:
2006-02-17

But it doesn't fix the black hole of oem keys that were disabled with SP2. I certainly hope XP limps along for the next twenty years. Next to pre-XP WinNT's and the Win9x's, it will make a good stablemate. Too bad their vulnerabilities never got fixed. They're fine to use well into the future.

Edited 2007-08-13 21:53

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Kroc on Mon 13th Aug 2007 21:53 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Vista-only software is the key to killing XP. See Halo 2 on PC. It's only been out for XBox1 for years and can be had for next to nothing now. It takes forever to turn up on PC, and lo, it's Vista only. PC gamers have been well & truly shafted.

I just wonder if too much Vista only software, too soon will wake people up and push them off Windows for good?

Reply Score: 3

RE
by tuaris on Mon 13th Aug 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE"
tuaris Member since:
2007-08-05

Windows XP has a built in kill switch:

Product Activation.

Reply Score: 9

RE
by Kroc on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Product Activation was killed first. Getting a pirate copy of XP without activation is easy, and users unhappy with Vista can very easily get XP without any effort. If there's anything I know about Windows users, it's that there's /always/ a workaround. ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE
by ssa2204 on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Product Activation is only an issue if you wish to use a pirated copy.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by nevali on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

Product Activation is only an issue if you wish to use a pirated copy.


For now, and if you're not one of the many people whose valid keys won't activate.

What happens when Microsoft decides to discontinue the product activation service for Windows XP (and, for that matter, Office XP) because it's no longer cost-effective? I don't recall them stating that they'd run it indefinitely (hint: because they haven't stated that).

Reply Score: 5

RE
by tuaris on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE"
tuaris Member since:
2007-08-05

Product Activation becomes an issue for everyone when Windows XP support is dropped.

Reply Score: 4

RE
by BluenoseJake on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Not really, then it just becomes like win98, and third parties will continue to write software for it if it is still popular, and with a good hardware firewall and AV, it'll be pretty secure.

Reply Score: 2

Hardware firewall??
by Morgan on Tue 14th Aug 2007 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree with what you are saying, except:

...with a good hardware firewall and AV, it'll be pretty secure.

How many home users running Windows XP have a hardware firewall sitting in their server rack in the living room, do you think? Or were you referring to a consumer-level router? The "firewall" in that type of router is software-based, and isn't a true software firewall at that. It's nothing more than NAT and some (very limited) port forwarding. A true software firewall is best run on the workstation, and a true hardware firewall is more expensive and complicated than most home users can handle. Yes, a home router can be fairly effective at stealthing the computers behind it, but it's an enormous stretch to call it a firewall.

Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my pet peeves when it comes to the technologically misinformed.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hardware firewall??
by BluenoseJake on Tue 14th Aug 2007 02:20 UTC in reply to "Hardware firewall??"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

a lot of people these days have nat routers in their homes, and while not fool-proof, they are a first line of defense against the wild and wooly internet. Most consumer routers also have firewalls. Hopefully, by the time XP is no longer supported, wireless routers will begin to approach wired routers level of security.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hardware firewall??
by Morgan on Tue 14th Aug 2007 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Hardware firewall??"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree that a router with NAT is a handy tool in securing a home connection (read the last part of my previous post) but my problem is with calling a router a hardware firewall. That's like calling a Go-Kart a family car; yes they both have wheels and an engine, but that's where the similarity ends (imagine a head-on collision in a Go-Kart compared to a real car). As I said before, the only "firewall" in a router is software based and is limited at that. A hardware firewall is what you find in your IT department's wiring closet; it's overkill for the typical home user but the misnomer leads people to believe that a router will offer more protection than it actually does. Your router has its place, but it should never, ever be the only line of defense.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hardware firewall??
by psychicist on Tue 14th Aug 2007 14:44 UTC in reply to "Hardware firewall??"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

A hardware firewall is nothing more or less than hardware running a hardened operating system based on Linux/BSD/VxWorks etc. The hardware should be robust and suitable for the task at hand but the software is a very large part of the solution.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by DittoBox on Tue 14th Aug 2007 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

Thanks for puking out the standard BSA party line. ;)

Product Activation is only an issue if aren't using a pirated copy.

Properly pirated copies don't even have activation components in them. This is exactly why Product Activation and DRM is complete crap. It only stops very casual pirates and legitimate customers.

Screw your customers too many times and/or two hard and you've got a problem on your hands.

Reply Score: 9

RE
by kaiwai on Tue 14th Aug 2007 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I can assure you that there have been many instances of product activating not working with even legal products. It isn't as clear cut as 'this doesn't activate, therefore, it is pirated'. Infact, Microsoft has actually make things worse through its use - anyone ever used Quark - then you'll know what I mean.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by sbergman27 on Tue 14th Aug 2007 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Product Activation is only an issue if you wish to use a pirated copy.
"""

Wow. What naivety.

No. It's an issue for all their customers. Expect more onerous burdens to be borne by their customers, to prove that they are legit, before this is over.

They have a billion people in China to "figure out how to collect from in the next decade".

Reply Score: 2

RE
by ssa2204 on Tue 14th Aug 2007 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Issue for ALL their customers? Aside from a small minority of people who complained and whined, this is a non-issue how many years on going? Fact is if you have a legit copy this is a non-issue. If you purchased certain corporate or OEM versions, this was a non-issue. If you did volume licensing this was a non-issue. If you wished to take your retail copy to school and pass around copies to your entire class...this was an issue.

In 6 years of working with numerous business, there has never been a single complaint or comment made by any person I have dealt with in regards to activation. In fact a good 90% never have even seen activation simply because their OS has been pre-activated by the MFR.

Where I did see a lot of griping was from people on the internet who it is very much obvious that they wished to use a pirated version they download. What is really naive is to think that Microsoft is alone. There are literally thousands of different applications out there that require the same, if not more. And let us not forgot how many applications require not only an activation, but an actual hardware dongle they need to attached to the serial or parallel port just to run the software they purchased.

What is naive is that I once thought that product activation was going to be this huge nightmare that was going to cause us countless hours of frustration. Again, I reiterate, in 6 plus years of dealing with well over 100 businesses in my area, we have yet to experience one single issue with this...so you are welcome to continue mindless ranting on this, you just might want to be a little more informed from people that actually WORK with this.

Reply Score: 0

RE
by sbergman27 on Wed 15th Aug 2007 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I reiterate, in 6 plus years of dealing with well over 100 businesses in my area, we have yet to experience one single issue with this.
"""

I'll be direct about this. I don't believe you.

Reply Score: 4

RE
by BluenoseJake on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Yeah, like they can do that. they can deny you updates, they can stop releasing software that will run on Xp, but they can't just turn it off, if they ever did, that would be the year of Linux on the desktop(tm)

Reply Score: 3

RE
by Kroc on Tue 14th Aug 2007 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

What 2014?

Reply Score: 2

RE
by SlackerJack on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Microsoft seem to think console XBL games will be a hit on the PC and making them Vista only, they're not.

I think DX10 is the only savior for Vista, they know hardcore gamers will use it. Microsoft having to push updates out that should be part of SP1 to fix file copying issues and usb speed just shows what a state Vista is in.

Reply Score: 4

RE
by vimh on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

DX10 isn't Vista's savior. Vista will need a lot more than that. DX10 isn't a huge draw for hardcore gamers. The first part of your post kinda points that out.

Reply Score: 3

RE
by Phloptical on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

And even DX10 is only for home needs. That said, how many gamers will be willing to fork out the cash for Vista + new video card just to be bleeding edge? Not many.

As far as corporate adoption, there's still nothing a properly configured active directory environment with WinXP can't do as well as Vista. I believe IT managers realize this.

Reply Score: 3

RE
by hobgoblin on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

the killer here isnt DX10, its a DX10-only game that everyone "must have" to the level of wow.

closest i have seen so far is hellgate: london.

but then i have not really payed much attention.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by DittoBox on Tue 14th Aug 2007 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

Don't bash SP1 too much. I don't like the idea of SP1 and I certainly think quality control and feature set of Vista could've been light years better considering the amount of money Microsoft has...however:

Since day 1 Mac OS (9 and below as well as OS X) gets updates throughout the product's life. The first two or three point releases contain fixes or optimizations specifically for speed. In fact a lot of issues are things most would categorize as "should've been caught." Bugs, not just optimizations.

Does this make it OK? No but Apple doesn't have nearly the wherewithal for that kind of quality control.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Morgan on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I think DX10 is the only savior for Vista, they know hardcore gamers will use it.

Just like DX9 was the only savior for XP? Most gamers I knew in 2001-2002 (myself included) continued to dual-boot Win98 and Win2k for our games. It wasn't until the game developers really started getting behind XP all the way that there was a mass migration, at least among my circle of gaming friends. I seem to remember the same mentality on most of the gaming sites as well.

Give Vista another year or two and the gamers will convert, granted the developers do so first. It's too early now though, with the only Vista-exclusive game software published by Microsoft.

As for business, well I know my organization won't move to Vista for at least five years, if ever. We just went 100% XP less than two years ago, and just got the SP2 rollout last year. With somewhere around 400-500 users, going to Vista now would be a big slap in the face to the budget folks when they just shelled out for an OS upgrade two years ago, not to mention the nightmare of getting our custom software to work with a new OS yet again.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by butters on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I think DX10 is the only savior for Vista, they know hardcore gamers will use it. Microsoft having to push updates out that should be part of SP1 to fix file copying issues and usb speed just shows what a state Vista is in.

Aren't they also "fixing" DX10 in Vista SP1, rendering DX10-compliant hardware obsolete for software that requires DX10.1?

It's maddening enough that Microsoft reserved DX10 for Vista for marketing reasons alone (after they dropped graphics virtualization to bail out NVIDIA). Now they've obsoleted untold thousands of high-end graphics cards mere months after their introduction.

Not only are gamers pissed, but the graphics vendors and game developers are livid. Vista is a flop, both Mac and Linux are gaining momentum, DX10 is seen as unnecessary by game developers, and OpenGL 3.0 has been blessed by the graphics establishment.

If Microsoft wanted to jeopardize its grip on the hugely important gaming market, they've done an outstanding job. DX10 isn't Vista's savior. It's a perfect microcosm of everything that consumers and technology partners dislike about Vista:

Requires new hardware, driver issues, lackluster performance, arguably unnecessary, vendor lock-in, broken promises, and pushy marketing. DX10 has it all.

Reply Score: 9

RE
by vimh on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

Vista only software is the key to pissing off customers. But then again, I have no interest in Halo2. Halo on the PC was an insult.

Now you have a really good point. Could too much Vista only stuff kill Windows gaming? If a few more publishers get suckered into going Vista only, perhaps people will get annoyed enough and go elsewhere.

I just think that it's going to be a while before too many Developers and Publishers will be willing make such a leap. There is just too big of market to ignore. That market will be using XP for their gaming for years.

I don't really consider myself a hardcore gamer. I don't have the latest and greatest computer hardware. But I'd consider myself an game enthusiast. I also typically follow the technology behind games more than the average gamer. I'm really in a wait and see mindset with the current graphic technology. I'm very glad to hear about OpenGL 3.0 but I'm extremely concerned about what's going on with DirectX.

To be honest, OpenGL 3.0 requirements are likely to be what I will pay attention to when upgrading, not DirectX. I have a feeling, a lot of gamers, hardcore or just enthusiasts, feel the same way.

Reply Score: 6

RE
by kaiwai on Tue 14th Aug 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Now you have a really good point. Could too much Vista only stuff kill Windows gaming? If a few more publishers get suckered into going Vista only, perhaps people will get annoyed enough and go elsewhere.


Even sat and thought that is their goal - I mean, they have the XBox, a games division - what would they rather do - sell you windows or a platform which they have complete top to bottom control over - where everything that goes in and on it has to pay a royalty to them. Its Balmers ultimate wet dream.

I just think that it's going to be a while before too many Developers and Publishers will be willing make such a leap. There is just too big of market to ignore. That market will be using XP for their gaming for years.


Never under estimate the stupidity of developers and organisations; even when companies had their market being eaten up by Microsoft they did nothing to diversify their software portfolio and attempt to make their products available on other platforms.

Its like PDF - just you wait, XPS will eventually become the status quo, and we'll have Adobe crying and whining because of lost marketshare because they refused to diversify and bring their products to *NIX. The potential on alternative platforms is HUGE by unfortunately these companies are run by those who would rather waste money frivolously on corporate jets and expensive dinners than re-investing the money back into future product development.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by graigsmith on Tue 14th Aug 2007 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE"
graigsmith Member since:
2006-04-05

i thought that some hacker already succeded in copying the direct x10 stuff to xp.

Reply Score: 1

Monopoly
by jessta on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:10 UTC
jessta
Member since:
2005-08-17

it's amazing that in a fast moving industry like software development microsoft is still managing to sell an operating system that is 6 years old.
They probaby could have delayed vista another couple of years and most people wouldn't have noticed.

This is what happens when there is hardly any competion in the market.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Monopoly
by smashIt on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "Monopoly"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

they can sell a 6 year old os because it's just good enough for 99% of the users
and thats the big problem they have with vista

beside this, it doesn't matter what os ms sells, as long as they sell an os.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Monopoly
by rx182 on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:23 UTC in reply to "Monopoly"
rx182 Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't agree with you.

XP is still there because it's "damn good"(tm). The only downside of this beautiful OS is that it's unsecure in Administrator Mode which is the default. Make all your family and friends running XP in Limited mode and you'e got the best solution for them.

Honestly, XP has strong points. It's fast, it boots fast, it has tons of software (opensource, freeware, shareware, retail), it got support for everything (Microsoft monopoly), it got a professional look (classic mode) but can be really sexy with 3rd party themes, etc.

Reply Score: 13

RE[2]: Monopoly
by leos on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopoly"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

XP is still there because it's "damn good"(tm).


Perhaps this should be a poll ;) XP is still here because...

I think it is still here because it's good enough for most people, and all the serious bugs and performance problems have been hammered out after 6 years of use by hundreds of millions of people. Also Vista is still kind of slow and buggy, so there is no alternative in Windows land. I'm sure that when Vista gets the same "mass testing" treatment, it will improve as well.
Neither XP or Vista are ideal for me, but I realize that for most users it is fine. After XP SP2, I can't see much point in setting up Linux for my parents. Before that XP was too insecure, and there were constant problems with adware and viruses. Now, XPSP2 with Firefox and AVG is good enough to keep the emergency computer fixing sessions to a minimum.

Edited 2007-08-13 22:36

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Monopoly
by SlackerJack on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopoly"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I can look sexy with false bright white teeth and beautiful with cosmetic surgery.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Monopoly
by BluenoseJake on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Are you sure about that? :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Monopoly
by Morgan on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

From your OSNews name, I assume you are a Slackware user (correct me if I'm wrong please) so I would venture a guess that you are using an OS that is by default much more visually appealing than XP's default. However, I will say that with a hacked uxtheme.dll and one of the amazing visual styles available around the web, XP can indeed become easier on the eyes. I've found it almost a necessity to use a subdued and slightly rounded/hinted style so that I'm not blinded by the Luna themes or jarred by the classic theme. It may sound silly to some, but the GUI theme can indeed impact a person's experience with a computer, both positively and negatively.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Monopoly
by DHofmann on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopoly"
DHofmann Member since:
2005-08-19

The only downside of this beautiful OS is that it's unsecure in Administrator Mode which is the default. Make all your family and friends running XP in Limited mode and you'e got the best solution for them.


I tried that, but getting some software to run as a normal user is difficult. Often you have to change permissions on directories and registry paths.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Monopoly
by WyldStylist on Tue 14th Aug 2007 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly"
WyldStylist Member since:
2006-12-30

The only downside of this beautiful OS is that it's unsecure in Administrator Mode which is the default. Make all your family and friends running XP in Limited mode and you'e got the best solution for them.

I did something else , ran as admin (nlited version)
No IE no print spooler/windows time/file protection and that stuff, i have only 5 services running .
Mshtml.dll core was removed and i used the offbyone web browser and sometimes k-meleon .
I also had bugoff disable insecurities.
I had absolutely no problems with XP stuff since most problems were not even installed 300 mb windows folder,
no need to update anything , im still on same system installed it like a year ago ;)
XP is very stable for advanced users (not always everyday user)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Monopoly
by WyldStylist on Tue 14th Aug 2007 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly"
WyldStylist Member since:
2006-12-30

The only downside of this beautiful OS is that it's unsecure in Administrator Mode which is the default. Make all your family and friends running XP in Limited mode and you'e got the best solution for them.

I did something else , ran as admin (nlited version)
No IE no print spooler/windows time/file protection and that stuff, i have only 5 services running .
Mshtml.dll core was removed and i used the offbyone web browser and sometimes k-meleon .
I also had bugoff disable insecurities.
I had absolutely no problems with XP stuff since most problems were not even installed 300 mb windows folder,
no need to update anything , im still on same system installed it like a year ago ;)
XP is very stable for advanced users (not always everyday user)

Sorry for posting twice i thought first was never posted.

Edited 2007-08-14 09:45

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Monopoly
by shapeshifter on Tue 14th Aug 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopoly"
RE[3]: Monopoly
by rx182 on Tue 14th Aug 2007 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly"
rx182 Member since:
2005-07-08


I don't understand why you got score of 12 because you're more ignorant than a door knob (I'd say dumn but that might sound ofensive).

Windows (in general all versions) is a showcase of bad software design.
You don't know what fast and multiuser is until you use Linux or *nix.

The only part you got right is the one with monopoly in it.


You're blind. I do use Linux (Mint Linux atm). But I think the Windows platform is more appealing to me.

Windows NT design is NOT bad. Example. On Linux, everyone use X most of the time nowaday. If X crashes, it's like the whole OS crashes right? They lose all their work anyway. Sure, we can argue that system services are unaffected but anyway, since we are talking about desktops, it doesn't matter much. And anyway, XP never blue screens unless you are using defective device drivers. Sadly, X doesn't take advantage of this: X is just another process.

On Windows, you use the GUI all the time too. It makes sense to have parts of the GUI API in ring0: the system is much more responsitive. That's why I say NT isn't badly designed: the design of NT tries to maximize the user experience, not to follow some ideological concepts (see GNU Hurd).

And the OS itself isn't the only appealing thing. Honestly, I much prefer Visual Studio 2005/2008b2 with the .NET framework over Eclipse and Java. I think the Microsoft alternative increases my productivity alot and the end result is better/faster software. No one can argue that .NET is bad design: it must be the best damn API ever made.

And of course, like I said in my first post: Windows has the most software. If you are using something on your Linux box or on your Mac to do some task X, you sure will find a Windows application to do task X which is more more adavanced than the one you're using right now (think about all cd/dvd drive emus (DTools), advanced cd/dvd burning apps (CloneCD, Alcohol), etc).

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Monopoly
by kaiwai on Tue 14th Aug 2007 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Monopoly"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You're blind. I do use Linux (Mint Linux atm). But I think the Windows platform is more appealing to me.

Windows NT design is NOT bad. Example. On Linux, everyone use X most of the time nowaday. If X crashes, it's like the whole OS crashes right? They lose all their work anyway. Sure, we can argue that system services are unaffected but anyway, since we are talking about desktops, it doesn't matter much. And anyway, XP never blue screens unless you are using defective device drivers. Sadly, X doesn't take advantage of this: X is just another process.


Pardon? I like the fact that only X dies rather than the whole thing going up in a puff of smoke. I like the idea that my whole computer doesn't spontaneously reboot resulting in the nervous nelly's over whether the registry or the file system itself has been screwed up in the process.

Then you say, "Sadly, X doesn't take advantage of this: X is just another process." - takes advantage of what? you've said "Sadly, X doesn't take advantage of this: X is just another process." and yet you've never actually *SAID* what Windows has which X fails to take advantage of.

On Windows, you use the GUI all the time too. It makes sense to have parts of the GUI API in ring0: the system is much more responsitive. That's why I say NT isn't badly designed: the design of NT tries to maximize the user experience, not to follow some ideological concepts (see GNU Hurd).


Pardon- what has GNU Hurd have to do with the price of fish? how is it 'more responsive'? I'm sitting here with Solaris which uses the latest Xorg - using the latest and greatest Nvidia drivers, and interesting enough, I find it alot more responsive than Windows Vista (when I ran it on this machine) under a heavy load.

Pulling things out of the air proves nothing, and repeating a lie multiple times doesn't spontaneously turn it from an exaggeration into an unquestionable truth.

And the OS itself isn't the only appealing thing. Honestly, I much prefer Visual Studio 2005/2008b2 with the .NET framework over Eclipse and Java. I think the Microsoft alternative increases my productivity alot and the end result is better/faster software. No one can argue that .NET is bad design: it must be the best damn API ever made.


Its a good design - but it is a Microsoft design for a Windows problem. The fact is, we in the *NIX world don't need it because it isn't as though our native API's are so notoriously broken that a re-invention is required.

Also, have you used Netbeans? When Netbeans 6.0 is released, grab a book, read it, then use it. Unlike Microsofts Visual Studio, Netbeans is opensource, if you want to add features, unlike Microsoft, you're not going to get sued as with the case of the guy who created a plugin - a popular one at that, then threatened legal action recently.

And of course, like I said in my first post: Windows has the most software. If you are using something on your Linux box or on your Mac to do some task X, you sure will find a Windows application to do task X which is more more adavanced than the one you're using right now (think about all cd/dvd drive emus (DTools), advanced cd/dvd burning apps (CloneCD, Alcohol), etc).


Sorry, I like using UNIX, I like the feel of UNIX, I like how things are run and organise. For Microsoft to win me over as a customer it would involve trading their operating system, embracing the OpenSolaris core and building a nice interface ontop, then I might consider moving.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Monopoly
by shapeshifter on Tue 14th Aug 2007 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Monopoly"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

You're blind. I do use Linux (Mint Linux atm). But I think the Windows platform is more appealing to me.

Windows NT design is NOT bad. Example. On Linux, everyone use X most of the time nowaday. If X crashes, it's like the whole OS crashes right? They lose all their work anyway. Sure, we can argue that system services are unaffected but anyway, since we are talking about desktops, it doesn't matter much. And anyway, XP never blue screens unless you are using defective device drivers. Sadly, X doesn't take advantage of this: X is just another process.

On Windows, you use the GUI all the time too. It makes sense to have parts of the GUI API in ring0: the system is much more responsitive. That's why I say NT isn't badly designed: the design of NT tries to maximize the user experience, not to follow some ideological concepts (see GNU Hurd).

And the OS itself isn't the only appealing thing. Honestly, I much prefer Visual Studio 2005/2008b2 with the .NET framework over Eclipse and Java. I think the Microsoft alternative increases my productivity alot and the end result is better/faster software. No one can argue that .NET is bad design: it must be the best damn API ever made.

And of course, like I said in my first post: Windows has the most software. If you are using something on your Linux box or on your Mac to do some task X, you sure will find a Windows application to do task X which is more more adavanced than the one you're using right now (think about all cd/dvd drive emus (DTools), advanced cd/dvd burning apps (CloneCD, Alcohol), etc).


Lol.
Oh boy, you just opened a can of warms.
Good to hear you're trying Linux.
I'll forgo arguing your post.
Let's just say that people that use their computers for work don't need crap like Clonecd or Alcohol - garbage software that installs nasty drivers.

Edited 2007-08-14 14:40

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Monopoly
by google_ninja on Tue 14th Aug 2007 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Monopoly"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

No one can argue that .NET is bad design: it must be the best damn API ever made


I would go so far as to say it is the best thing to ever come out of microsoft.

I was a diehard j2ee dev for years, and used to laugh at the poor schmucks who had to use asp classic. Now i'm freelance and using asp.net, and my friends all laugh at me because i can't stop saying good things about it.

And of course, like I said in my first post: Windows has the most software. If you are using something on your Linux box or on your Mac to do some task X, you sure will find a Windows application to do task X which is more more adavanced than the one you're using right now (think about all cd/dvd drive emus (DTools), advanced cd/dvd burning apps (CloneCD, Alcohol), etc).


If you go past simple utility stuff, there is very little on linux that is better then what is on windows (outside of scientific apps, many of which are unix only). Even compared to other UNIXs, linux isnt exactly top drawer. The appeal of linux is that it is Good Enough and costs nothing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Monopoly
by Laurence on Tue 14th Aug 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"I don't understand why you got score of 12 because you're more ignorant than a door knob (I'd say dumn but that might sound ofensive).

Windows (in general all versions) is a showcase of bad software design.
You don't know what fast and multiuser is until you use Linux or *nix.

The only part you got right is the one with monopoly in it."


You had some valid points but there really wasn't any need to be that abusive in conveying them.

Poor show mate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Monopoly
by shapeshifter on Wed 15th Aug 2007 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Monopoly"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

You had some valid points but there really wasn't any need to be that abusive in conveying them.

Poor show mate.


You're right, my bad.

Although if he was here I might have had swung my briefcase at him ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Monopoly
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 14th Aug 2007 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopoly"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Make all your family and friends running XP in Limited mode and you'e got the best solution for them.


That is effective - but not nearly as practical for home users. In my previous job, I was the de-facto admin of a small computer lab (about a dozen PCs) - with win2k and the default account given guest permissions.

But when I've tried to do that for home users, it's been more hassle than it was worth. Inevitably I would get an endless stream of phonecalls where I would have to walk the user through E.g. the installation of software that required admin rights (and often, changing the permissions of the program's folder after installing it - so that non-admin users could actually *run* it), or changing settings in the control panel that are admin-only (most of them, IIRC), etc.

It works great in an environment where there's an IT staff/person who has ultimate control over the machines. But in a home environment, people expect to have full control over their computers - and XP's functionality for access resources as different users is pretty perfunctory (E.g., the insane syntax of runas in the CMD shell, the way you have to make *shortcuts* to control panel items to use Run As on them, the way you have to us Run As on IExplore in order to open a file manager as a different user, etc).

I will say, though, that the combination of AVG Free + Spybot + regular scheduled auto-updates and scans is quite effective for keeping XP clean for home users who don't want to put up with the hassle of running as a non-admin.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Monopoly
by Laurence on Tue 14th Aug 2007 09:04 UTC in reply to "Monopoly"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"it's amazing that in a fast moving industry like software development microsoft is still managing to sell an operating system that is 6 years old.
They probaby could have delayed vista another couple of years and most people wouldn't have noticed. "


To be fair - XP is one of MS's best desktop orientated OS (though that's more down to 9x/Me being unspeakably bad than XP's achievements)

Reply Score: 4

Too much of a success?
by Almafeta on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:21 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Microsoft: "Hey, guys, we've got this great new OS, spent years getting it just right, it's finally ready to go and we'd like to share it with you..."

Public: "Shut up, we still want XP."

Microsoft: "But the problem is we never expected to be on this version so long... we've sold so many copies we can't even make any more product keys."

Public: "Not our problem. XP or get out."

(Geeze. Talk about your weird situations...)

Reply Score: 7

v RE: Too much of a success?
by Moulinneuf on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:00 UTC in reply to "Too much of a success?"
RE[2]: Too much of a success?
by SReilly on Tue 14th Aug 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Too much of a success?"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

[OT]
Moulinneuf: I like to comments post things about I have no idea talking about what!

OSNews Readers: WTF?

Moulinneuf: You moron stupid! Not understanding reality is problems yours not his!!!, mine or!!!
[/OT]

@Almafeta: Very true, an interesting predicament MS seems to have gotten themselves into. I'm sure it's only temporary, for now, and MS will go on to make Vista a hit but the publics reaction has been nothing if not lukewarm so far.

As far as the new patches go, they do make the system very responsive and have seemed to stabilize Vista. I for one am hoping that the ‚ā¨200 I have invested is not a write off ;-)

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: Too much of a success?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too much of a success?"
RE[4]: Too much of a success?
by SReilly on Tue 14th Aug 2007 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too much of a success?"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

The *new patches* your referring to , are not distributed by the automatic update system in Vista to normal user's yet.

Never said they where.

...I see you also work on Solaris , I guess that explain the 1989 jokes.

Again, WTF!?!

There is a couple of missing word in your stupid joke , to make a complete phrase that make sense in English.

Thanks for proving my point, it's nice to see that I can hit the marker from time to time. :-)

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Too much of a success?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 14th Aug 2007 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too much of a success?"
RE[6]: Too much of a success?
by Steven on Tue 14th Aug 2007 06:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too much of a success?"
Steven Member since:
2005-07-20

I guess my mind reader "edition translator for stupid" was broken again ... No need to add un-official patches , its just the English dialect after all , you must not be good at it ... I am the one who miss words ...

... Yes, it certainly does seem that way.

I just have to ask... I know I'll be scored down for this... but... why are you such an imbecile?

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Too much of a success?
by Obscurus on Tue 14th Aug 2007 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Too much of a success?"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

There really isn't much point in engaging in any form of conversation with Moulinneuf. His tenuous grasp of the English language (I have never seen anyone type broken English in a French accent before), psychotic and irrational hatred of BSD and rambling incoherent diatribes have not exactly endeared him to many. I think "troll" is a term well applied in this case, and if you feed trolls, they only get more annoying (I've learned this from bitter experience).

Reply Score: 4

v RE[7]: Too much of a success?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 14th Aug 2007 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Too much of a success?"
RE[4]: Too much of a success?
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 14th Aug 2007 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too much of a success?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a couple of missing word in your stupid joke , to make a complete phrase that make sense in English.


Your posts are much more intelligible when you're copy-pasting from the University of Ottawa's website.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Too much of a success?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 14th Aug 2007 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too much of a success?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"Your posts are much more intelligible when you're copy-pasting from the University of Ottawa's website."

Sorry , I still don't have a pony for you ...

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Too much of a success?
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 20th Aug 2007 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too much of a success?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry , I still don't have a pony for you ...


Or a clue, evidently.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Too much of a success?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too much of a success?"
RE[3]: Too much of a success?
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 14th Aug 2007 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too much of a success?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

[OT]
Moulinneuf: I like to comments post things about I have no idea talking about what!

OSNews Readers: WTF?

Moulinneuf: You moron stupid! Not understanding reality is problems yours not his!!!, mine or!!!
[/OT]


It is very fortunate that I wasn't drinking anything while reading that, or you would owe me a new keyboard right about now ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too much of a success?
by WereCatf on Tue 14th Aug 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Too much of a success?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15


Microsoft : fine we will release another batch of XP and claim it's an OS people still want.


Well, this is erroneous..It's not Microsoft who claims that. That's a fact: a lot of people rather choose XP over Vista.


Public : we don't want Microsoft product anymore , we already have computer with XP and Xbox game console.


That's just stupid. There's ALWAYS need for new computers, either when your old one breaks, when you just need a new one in your household for your daughter, when your company hires more employees..And especially in the case of companies they do like to stay with the same software they've used already for several years, out of fear of instability and new issues, and as such they choose XP for now.

Sorry, just had to see what this ruckus was all about and it seems people didn't like your joke which didn't really have any point.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Too much of a success?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 14th Aug 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too much of a success?"
RE[4]: Too much of a success?
by sbergman27 on Tue 14th Aug 2007 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too much of a success?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I was not joking , I offered another view , BTW the ruckus is about me personally , not about my comment here.
"""

I agree. Moulinneuf speaks his mind. His English is fluent, compared to my abilities with languages which are not my native one. Which means... I'm like a fish out of water when I cannot rely upon English to convey my meaning.

Am I alone? I think that Moulinneuf has some unpopular ideas, likely with good reasons behind them, and is not in as convenient a position as are some of us to present or defend them.

In short, I *really* think that people should *listen* to Moulinneuf. That they should agree, or disagree, as the situation calls for. But please don't reply or mod Moulinneuf reflexively.

-Steve

Edited 2007-08-14 22:14

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Too much of a success?
by Spellcheck on Tue 14th Aug 2007 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too much of a success?"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

Except that he's unintelligible, so if I listened to him my ears would melt.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Too much of a success?
by sbergman27 on Wed 15th Aug 2007 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too much of a success?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Except that he's unintelligible, so if I listened to him my ears would melt.
"""

I don't find him so. And trust me on this. Your ears would not melt.

Why don't you try responding in French?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Too much of a success?
by sbergman27 on Tue 14th Aug 2007 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too much of a success?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Duplicate. Please ignore.

Edited 2007-08-14 22:14

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Too much of a success?
by WereCatf on Wed 15th Aug 2007 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too much of a success?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15


Put Windows Vista Ultimate complete version at 35$-50$ for OEM and offer all the service pack as automatic update and people will want the new Windows vista.

Most people already have XP computers. It's not that they want XP , it's just they don't want to have to buy everything again.


Umm, but Joe Average uses whatever Windows comes with his computer, and when you're buying a computer the cost stays the same no matter which Windows version it has. As for people who already have a computer and no need for a new one..Well, I don't know a _single_ person who would buy Vista just for the sake of having a new Windows to play with, no matter the price. For most people there is simply no reason to upgrade, even if Vista was free, and then there's a whole bunch of people who don't want to upgrade to Vista either because it's requirements are too big or they're afraid of incompatibilities. That's just the way it is, the price just doesn't come into play at all for most people. (Note that I'm not saying it's completely irrelevant)


It's more telling about the state of Vista then the need for XP. Would you not agree that Vista is too pricey and is scaring people into buying XP ? Then a real need and want for XP ? That's how the market seem to see it.


Nope. As I said, if you're buying a new computer and you get to choose between Vista and XP, there is either no difference in price or it's really very minimal.


I was not joking , I offered another view , BTW the ruckus is about me personally , not about my comment here.


I noticed. Oh well, some people just act childish, ignore them.

Reply Score: 1

98?
by AdamW on Mon 13th Aug 2007 22:40 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

Isn't Win98 already the OS that won't die?

Reply Score: 3

RE: 98?
by hobgoblin on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:52 UTC in reply to "98?"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

nah, it died the day xp sp2 got released...

still, its more forgiving then any nt based os out there when it comes to hardware replacements.

you can move it from one motherboard to the next without seeing much more then a "new driver" dialog.

on NT based, like 2k or xp, its almost guaranteed to provoke a blue screen...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: 98?
by Morgan on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE: 98?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm amazed that I still see this complaint brought up about NT based versions of Windows. The problem lies in the hard drive controllers and it's a simple fix:

Before moving to the new mainboard, go to your device manager and change the drive controller drivers to the universal ("standard") Microsoft-branded ones. Now, when you move to the new board, Windows will use the universal drivers initially and not give you a blue screen. From that point you can install the board-specific controller drivers to get the expected performance.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: 98?
by hobgoblin on Tue 14th Aug 2007 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 98?"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

tried that not to long ago, and it failed...

but if its that simple i wonder why microsoft never made that system automatic. so that if the brand specific ones failed, it would automatically fall back to the "standard" ones and try again.

tossing a blue screen at the user is just dumb design.

win98 could handle something like this without a hickup, linux can. why cant something that more or less the top of the line from microsoft be able to do so?

Reply Score: 3

RE: 98?
by solidsnake on Tue 14th Aug 2007 02:10 UTC in reply to "98?"
solidsnake Member since:
2006-06-04

Truly,

I still run Win98 because I can put it on as many computers as I want as many times as I want. There are a few "Unofficial Upgrade" packs that improve it's performance too. A few weeks ago I replaced my parent's computer but needed an operating system for it. Since they are AOL dial up subscribers, I had to use Windows. The computer was too old for Vista and I could not get my hands on a real copy of XP. But hey, I had an old Win98 disc laying around. Worked just fine for their needs.

(Now I really wish AOL would make a linux version so I can get my parents away from Windows altogether)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 98?
by Almafeta on Tue 14th Aug 2007 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE: 98?"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

(Now I really wish AOL would make a linux version so I can get my parents away from Windows altogether)


Early editions of AOL actually were full OSs -- they were copies of GEOS with all software but the AOL client disabled.

But I wouldn't remind them of this now. The last thing we want AOL doing is to be given total control over the OS their customers use...

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: 98?
by solidsnake on Tue 14th Aug 2007 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 98?"
solidsnake Member since:
2006-06-04

"The last thing we want AOL doing is to be given total control over the OS their customers use..."


The very thought is quite frightening....... ;)

Reply Score: 1

The OS that Won't Die?
by chemical_scum on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:14 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

XP the OS of the UNDEAD.

Remember Evil Entity Linux, I think that's dead now - It died of waiting for e17. Maybe it will be resurrected.

How about Vista OS of the DEAD.

Hey I use XP at work - I guess I must belong to the army of the UNDEAD.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The OS that Won't Die?
by Almafeta on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:45 UTC in reply to "The OS that Won't Die?"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

XP the OS of the UNDEAD. Remember Evil Entity Linux, I think that's dead now - It died of waiting for e17. Maybe it will be resurrected. How about Vista OS of the DEAD. Hey I use XP at work - I guess I must belong to the army of the UNDEAD.


There's a filk of Thriller somewhere in there.

Reply Score: 2

DirectX 10
by blitze on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:37 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Ain't the draw card everyone thinks. On some DirectX titles that are both 9c and 10, there is hardly any visual difference. Couple that with MS making 10 redundant with Vista SP1 by releasing DirectX 10.1 and also every hard core gamers DirectX10 capable card and you have a lot of people pissed off.

Hopefully this is where Open libraries will fill the void and allow then for cross platfor gaming binaries that break Windows monopoly on PC gaming.

As for Vista, XP is more than a match especially if hardened by locking down user priviledges. Getting programs to run in a restricted user account is a pain in the ass but only because developers have been fn lazy and always assumed Administrative rights to Windows OS's. Vista is changing that and if developers play their cards right and target both XP and Vista the benefits will flow both ways.

Personally, I'd prefer developers to target non windows platforms as well but time will come for that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: DirectX 10
by hobgoblin on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:58 UTC in reply to "DirectX 10"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

or maybe we will see robust and effective 3D inside a virtual machine?

as in, being able to load a minimal xp/vista+dx environment inside a virtual machine running on top of just about anything.

hell, it seem that compiz fusion on ubuntu is getting a lot of oohs and aahs these days.

nothing like having a promo video that shows a full screen video being played on one virtual desktop, then a keypress and you have all 4 or more of them lined up, with them all being interactive and the video still playing.

the visual effects are up there with apples front row transition imo.

so with the right setup you can be watching a movie on one desktop, hit a key and glance over to see the status of a im client on another desk, a torrent download on a third, and so on. all happening in real time.

it may seem that microsoft have been beaten by the penguin on desktop special effects ;)

and was not that one of the large draws of vista? the wow effect of using it? that the impression the stuff i have seen so far from ms marketing have led me to belive.

Edited 2007-08-14 00:00

Reply Score: 2

RE: DirectX 10
by Nelson on Tue 14th Aug 2007 05:54 UTC in reply to "DirectX 10"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

First off: DirectX10 is a huge leap in graphical quality. This is due to the fact that you can have more on screen, doing more things at once. It allows for even more complex lighting/shadowing, and greater freedom with special effects (geom shaders, and the even broader unified shader arch)

However, most of the improvements are just results of the inherent performance gains in DirectX10.
Delegating more work to the GPU allows more complex physics operations due to the freed up CPU power.

Next, DirectX 10.1 ONLY tightens up the restrictions on Gaming (I believe it's Floating Point precision and Anti aliasing). Bear in mind ALL (or something close to all) of the current cards CAN meet the DirectX 10.1 standards.

The only difference is that 10.1 will ONLY accept the new changes, as opposed to 10.0 which lets you use both.

This is simply tightening up the minimum requirements, and should only impact the feature set of future iterations of DX10 capable cards.

This issue was severely blown out of proportion by The Inquirer (Surprise, surprise) but we all know they're the most factual and unbiased techical news site right? Right? Wrong.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: DirectX 10
by dsmogor on Tue 14th Aug 2007 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE: DirectX 10"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Just curious. Isn't unified shader model and existence of geom. shading excluding successfull application of 9c era cards for dx10 software?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: DirectX 10
by Nelson on Tue 14th Aug 2007 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DirectX 10"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm not 100% sure, but I'd wager that the way the cards are designed weighs heavily on what it can and can not do.

The advantage of DirectX10 falls in the new driver platforms, and innovations (by nVidia and ATI)in the video card industry. It's a joint effort between them and Microsoft.

This is why, DX10 has had a rocky start. The API is only half the solution. If the drivers/hardware are not mature, then they will possibly suffer a step backwards in performance.

I'd also like to take the time to point out, that no game currently uses DirectX10 to it's full potential (definitely not the overhyped Lost Planet DX10 path).
I'd rank that to the Halo 2 Vista improvements, just higher resolution textures with some (slightly, very very slightly) nicer lighting models. I mean, you can see the difference, but it's marginal.

DX10 is pretty much a pioneering area at the moment, developers are still getting up to speed on the changes. This holds true even when DirectX9 came out.

Let's compare a DX9 game which launched recently, to one that launched shortly after the advent of DX9.

I'm not going to say DX10 is all that and then some, I'm just saying let's give it some time.

Reply Score: 2

......
by islander on Mon 13th Aug 2007 23:59 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

This is a win/win situation for Microsoft.More OEMs experimenting with Linux and they want to seal that window ,pardon the pun, of opportunity shut tight while they fix Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ......
by Obscurus on Tue 14th Aug 2007 03:16 UTC in reply to "......"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

Far from it. Microsoft have effectively locked themselves into supporting a legacy product for far longer than is profitable. MS will make bugger all from new XP sales over the next few years, and will start spending more supporting it than they are making from it.

MS really should have taken a different tack with Vista - they new it was going to ship late, and they most likely knew as well that XP was going to be hard to shift, given that Vista doesn't really have that much to offer over XP for most users. They should have made Vista a strictly 64 bit OS only with no more than 2 versions (home and business), and preferably just one, and included some powerful virtualisation and emulation features so that users could run old apps. Hardware developers would have had the certainty and simplicity of only needing to write one driver for Vista, as would software devs. Since most people would need a hardware upgrade anyway, doing this really wouldn't affect those who want to keep using their current machine with XP.

MS needs to depreciate XP much sooner if it wants Vista to really catch on, and they really made a mistake IMO by having too many different editions, which has made the range of options too confusing for consumers. FFS, just have one version and be done with it, enough of that silly and artificial market segmentation.

I don't think this will have a dramatic impact on Linux adoption - if anything, more people will shift to Apple Mac, but I suspect that Linux will slowly and gradually increase its share of the pie as it has been doing for several years now. Everyone knows who Microsoft and Apple are, few have any idea what Linux is, and brand name recognition is what counts when it comes to adoption, not the technical merits of the product itself. If Ubuntu keeps up its relentless marketing and escalates it some more, it might start catching on in a major way - Dell distributing Ubuntu doesn't hurt either. Ubuntu has the right branding and marketing recipe to do what Suse, RedHat Xandros and Mandriva have failed to do for years - corner a decent portion of the home desktop user market.

Edited 2007-08-14 03:16

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: ......
by islander on Tue 14th Aug 2007 03:22 UTC in reply to "......"
islander Member since:
2007-04-11

+ you up one.Good post.Makes sense to me.

Reply Score: 1

Install alternate OS from Microsoft
by TusharG on Tue 14th Aug 2007 04:52 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows 3.11 - was good
Avoid Windows 95 - it was buggy
Windows 98 - was good
Avoid Windows ME - it was buggy
Windows XP - was good
Avoid Windows Vista - it is buggy?
Windows xxxx - Hope it will be good!!! ?

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Windows 3.11 - was good"

I don't know what planet you're from but here on Earh 3.11 was crap.

Reply Score: 8

TusharG Member since:
2005-07-06

Well if you compare win 3.11 with win 95

win 3.11 was definitely good. It hardely used to show blue screen of death that windows 95 made popular. The win 3.11 was very light weight and it was super fast than win 95

win 3.11 comparison with win 95 was better ;)

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Well if you compare win 3.11 with win 95

win 3.11 was definitely good. It hardely used to show blue screen of death that windows 95 made popular. The win 3.11 was very light weight and it was super fast than win 95

win 3.11 comparison with win 95 was better ;) "


Except Windows 3.x wasn't an operating system (though neither was 9x in the strictest sense of the term, but more so than 3.x was)

Reply Score: 3

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

And what would you call them?
Or rather, what oddball definition of the term operating system are you using?

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

3.X was no more an OS than KDE or GNOME (or DosShell, for those with good memory) is an OS. It was just a graphic enviornment running on top of DOS.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"And what would you call them [Windows 3.1]?
Or rather, what oddball definition of the term operating system are you using?"


I'd call Windows 3.1 a GUI or a frontend to DOS.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"win 3.11 was definitely good."

Oh yes, I really enjoyed the constant struggles getting it to work with whatever DOS i was using (since, you know, 3.x wasnt a real OS), fiddling endlessly with different autoexec.bat and config.sys options, smartdrv, getting it to work with stacker and other "fun" stuff. And lets not even mentioning trying to run games from it (or even getting games to run in DOS).

"It hardely used to show blue screen of death that windows 95 made popular."

That's only because it flat out died instead.

"The win 3.11 was very light weight and it was super fast than win 95"

While '95 wasn't a stellar OS it sure was a hell lot better than 3.x. Yes, as unstable and problematic as it could be it was much better. People who think 3.x was better than '95+ either never used 3.x seriously or need to take off their rose-colored glasses.

Reply Score: 5

Windows XP
by NY2NV on Tue 14th Aug 2007 04:57 UTC
NY2NV
Member since:
2007-06-29

I understand the hesitation of most XP users to upgrade. Most PC userís I know wonít upgrade till they buy a new PC, then as long as itís Windows theyíll buy it. They would not consider a mac or Linux. They buy a PC based on price.
Theyíve never looked at a mac. Linux may as well be from Mars.
As a Vista user for almost 5 months, itís a success. Yes I did upgrade my on board video with a pci express card, didnít have to, just wanted more horsepower. Overall wouldnít consider going back to XP.

Reply Score: 2

is xp so good?
by graigsmith on Tue 14th Aug 2007 05:27 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

perhaps xp is so good, because vista is so horribly bad and wrong for the consumer? i mean come on. they kept telling people how much they needed a new monitor to view videos and all that DRM. The problem with vista, is that they clearly, did NOT listen to it's customers.

Microsoft LISTEN. customers do not want DRM. customers do not want any new monitor format just so that movie companies can feel safe to put movie trailers out. it's ridiculous. Customers do not want 10 different versions either, just 1 version (do away with the upgrade version bull, and make 1 version priced like the upgrade) with every bell and whistle, at a reasonable price. 500 dollars is not reasonable either. neither is 100. 30 dollars is an ok price for the retail version.

Reply Score: 6

5 years just wasted
by gsmd on Tue 14th Aug 2007 06:53 UTC
gsmd
Member since:
2007-02-02

This clearly indicates that Vista is a (at least partial) miss.

Reply Score: 2

Windows' rival...
by JacobMunoz on Tue 14th Aug 2007 07:42 UTC
JacobMunoz
Member since:
2006-03-17

... in my (optimistic) opinion would be ReactOS.

Unless Linux and others can natively emulate the Win32/.Net APIs without needing a Master's degree in comp sci, XP will probably be the dead end for most users. And that's fine - I still kinda use a BeOS box every now and then, and that's what will stay on it. Some machines have a peak-OS they run best with, Win98SE is still out there - and it still works. But XP does alot, and once patched - quite well. My HP laptop's been running XP quite well (I can MAKE it crash if I want to - but that's intentional, I haven't had any problems at all), and everybody's terrified of Vista - so why bother? Your app runs, so you're happy.

The central question is and will forever be:
"Does it run my program?"
And most software is Windows/Dos. Apple has a modest chunk, but it's generally expensive (due to the resources needed to port / if porting can be done). Unix/Linux/etc. software, while effective is generally freeware that feels less polished or at least less user-friendly (big big generalization - but true). You get what you pay for, and many alternative OSs have wonderful commercial apps - but what about my Simcity 4? Heck, all those DirectX games? The massive collection of Windows/DOS games I've bought over the years? Not under Linux, or at least not well. Even then, you need an existing copy of Windows for Wine or the others (to my knowledge). Same with the Mac boot-camp project, you don't just magically 'get' Windows, you're clinging on to it to keep your apps running.

If ReactOS can reproduce (and possibly improve) windows XP, and for FREE - Microsoft may actually lose it's hold on the OS market. When things aren't broken, people don't need to upgrade. Upgrade to what? Slower performance for more bells & whistles, I mean do I seriously need a trasactional filesystem? I mean just SAVE the darn file, don't contemplate the metaphysical ramifications of "readme.txt"...

Mono's actually starting to make tangible progress (I have personally had console apps compiling and running on MacOS, yay!) - and I think most of the world will stick to .Net 2.0 compatability for some time. Then there's just the giant squid of Win32 to deal with, and if the underlying system works XP will become irrelevant. There are millions of Windows programmers out there (I'm one of them), and we're all being dragged along watching the OS's we use get killed when they're not cost-effective. XP is an excellent target for compatability because the range of software it entails guarantees a beautiful gem to those that can crack the code.

Imagine a Windows kernel with other OS APIs as well, far beyond cygwin or virtualization - actual binary compatability.. perhaps for poor 'ol Haiku, or rebirth of an obscure Amiga application running at native speed (or near-to) not within the bounds of a virtualization window, but their own real honest-to-goodness window living amongst Windows windows. Only when you have access to the kernel's complete code could you hope to achieve something like this, which isn't out of reach when you've written it from scratch.


One can only hope...

...unless they can code.

Reply Score: 3

Penguinusers will vote this down
by Haicube on Tue 14th Aug 2007 10:29 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

For many of us there is only XP and Vista on the market. As far as I'm concerned, XP (despite being 6 years old) is in many ways far ahead of *Nix options except for maybe OSX (Clarification: Only desktop usage concerned). Apple on the other hand is in my world not better than Microsoft. Leaves little to no options for many of us.

Leaving the empathic issues and stricly focusing on some hard facts. I'm using Windows specific software that doesn't exist on other platforms, therefor its XP or Vista. Vista doesn't really bring any benefits to me as a business user and WILL hog resources I'm confident. XP works and that is what counts.... I know there's many here who think an office package and voila you have all business users, that's not how it is. There's SO many companies who use 1 or 2 specific softwares only available on Windows so we're stuck.

Vista will sell more, like some said, on games and on Vista only software. Luckily, many vendors won't help them on the way as they prefer having large sales than Vista only!

Reply Score: 3

hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

could i prod you into listing those ways?

Reply Score: 2

NY2NV
by NY2NV on Tue 14th Aug 2007 11:58 UTC
NY2NV
Member since:
2007-06-29

I think the majority of negative comments about Vista come from non users. Granted you do need more ram, but itís every bit as fast as XP on my system.
All the talk about DRM has not stopped from doing anything I did on XP, not a single issue.

Reply Score: 1

RE: NY2NV
by buff on Tue 14th Aug 2007 12:06 UTC in reply to "NY2NV"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I think the majority of negative comments about Vista come from non users.

So true. I setup a Vista system for my father and he loves it. It was with all new hardware so it made it easy. Now I have Vista envy. It looks great. The UI is very smooth and pleasing looking. Applications run nicely. Eventually people will upgrade but it could take a while. I love it that XP is holding on causing MS problems they hadn't planned for. XP isn't great but it is good enough. Combine that with the principle that people don't like change, for the most part, and it is easy to see why XP is holding on.

Reply Score: 2

RE: NY2NV
by kaiwai on Tue 14th Aug 2007 12:55 UTC in reply to "NY2NV"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the majority of negative comments about Vista come from non users. Granted you do need more ram, but itís every bit as fast as XP on my system.
All the talk about DRM has not stopped from doing anything I did on XP, not a single issue.


I'd say that might be true in a lot of cases, but lets remember, the vast majority of end users - those who go into department stores and purchase their boxes off the shelf, don't ask or question about Windows Vista. Very few people upgrading via retail editions so the issue of 'rejection of Windows Vista' is a non-issue.

I do think, however, the rejection from within businesses is an important tread to take note; not whether they stay with Windows XP but whether they consider alternatives to Windows XP. How much of their so-called 'critical' applications are actually all that critical when they have a 500 tonne freight train called "renew your software assurance" rolling towards them.

I've always find it funny when I hear people claim the need for a certain application from *NIX and yet when push comes to shove, and they're asked to purchase it themselves there is a suddenly, "well, I don't really need it, I could always use this application here and get the same result".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Monopoly
by mind!dagger on Tue 14th Aug 2007 12:17 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

Okay. Let me qualify. I despise MS and Windows. That said, you CAN secure XP but it generally takes someone with a Unix security mindset. The mindset is basically one where security privs are granted as needed and for the level each user needs. It also involves creating a third user and adjusting admin settings.

Edited 2007-08-14 12:23

Reply Score: 1

MS are the masters of disaster
by spackie on Wed 15th Aug 2007 03:38 UTC
spackie
Member since:
2007-08-15

What a disaster Vista has become. No modularisation to allow users to build their own "vista stack" to their own requirements (with or without Aero, IE etc) plus all the other junk Microsoft insist on chucking in.

Edited 2007-08-15 03:39

Reply Score: 1

Gotta love MS
by Alleister on Wed 15th Aug 2007 12:27 UTC
Alleister
Member since:
2006-05-29

Another instant classic... my favorite comedy satirical view on the IT industry.

Reply Score: 2

Difference between Vista and XP upgrade
by Jokel on Wed 15th Aug 2007 13:41 UTC
Jokel
Member since:
2006-06-01

A lot of people I know did a upgrade from '98 to XP. The majority of them did not have to buy a new computer, but just buy a faster processor, and/or a bit of RAM, and/or a new videocard. For a lot of people only upgrading one item was enough to run XP on their existing machine...

Now - with Vista - there is a whole different story. Most people wont get away with just some extra memory, or a single processor update or whatever. Most times their machine is too old to upgrade enough to run Vista smoothly.

In both cases I am talking about computers that where about 2 to 5 years old. An believe me, for most of those people a computer is something like a TV - you buy only one every 5 to 7 years or more.

I have a typical computer here in front of me (AMD 64 3200+, 2Gb, GeForce 6600GT), and it is running Vista slow and sluggish. And this is a system whose specs are beyond most typical home users.

And I think there lies exactly the problem!!

Now - I also runned some flavors of Linux on the same machine, and this did not feel sluggish at all. So - even something complex as the latest and newest Linux distro runs better than a OS that had years of development and optimalisation. This is a shame...

Now don't sabre me down because I compared the two systems. The facts are there. Now something has to be done about it. And it's not the fault of the end user, or something he/she could do about it - thats for sure...

n.b. sorry about my English - it's not my native language

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15


I have a typical computer here in front of me (AMD 64 3200+, 2Gb, GeForce 6600GT), and it is running Vista slow and sluggish. And this is a system whose specs are beyond most typical home users.


That's actually a whole lot better than anyone in my friends or family has ;) Even my PC is just a Sempron 2600+ with 768mb RAM.. So, if anyone of us went for Vista he/she would have to upgrade the whole damn computer

Reply Score: 1