Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2008 22:40 UTC
Windows Microsoft will shutter its Windows XP line June 30, as planned, ceasing sales of Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home to retailers and direct OEMs, Microsoft confirmed to eWEEK April 3. The statement from Redmond executives ends weeks of speculation that Microsoft would extend the life of the operating system as users turn up their nose at Vista, the operating system meant to supplant XP, and OEMs argue lighter versions of desktops and notebooks don't have the juice to run Vista.
Thread beginning with comment 307975
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
...
by autumnlover on Thu 3rd Apr 2008 23:25 UTC
autumnlover
Member since:
2007-04-12

It is not wise choice, but after all - its their company, not mine. If I could make one decision on behalf of Microsoft - I will cease the sales of XP and restart the sales of Windows 2000. In its current state. It is still far more useful system than Vista.

I still regret that I do not purchased one boxed Windows 2000 when it was possible.

Reply Score: 7

RE: ...
by helf on Thu 3rd Apr 2008 23:51 in reply to "..."
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Thank god I have a VLK corp edition of XP... ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: ...
by shapeshifter on Fri 4th Apr 2008 00:54 in reply to "RE: ..."
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Who doesn't? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: ...
by dimosd on Fri 4th Apr 2008 01:22 in reply to "RE: ..."
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

Thank god I have a VLK corp edition of XP... ;)


Free as in beer, I guess :-)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: ...
by Nico57 on Fri 4th Apr 2008 00:15 in reply to "..."
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

2000 still missed a few interesting bits which only came with XP (TS, cleartype, 32b systray icons, wifi support, wide OS diffusion, ...), and which somewhat offset its Playskool GUI and overweight.

I have yet to find one feature I need in Vista (maybe the ability to shrink NTFS volumes, but that's more of a server feature), and on the other side my list of showstoppers keeps getting LONGER everyday, which is pretty frightening for a 1 year old OS (sick UAC implementation, completely incoherent shell UI, lack of 3rd party VPN support, global slowness, heavyness and unneeded complexity...)

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: ...
by autumnlover on Fri 4th Apr 2008 00:49 in reply to "RE: ..."
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

Lack of WiFi was partial - it was only lack of build-in WiFi support - custom drivers ran just fine.

Some issues with large disks are more irritating - but still quite easy to fix.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by christianhgross on Fri 4th Apr 2008 06:33 in reply to "RE: ..."
christianhgross Member since:
2005-11-15

I have tried to like Vista... I really have.

Here are the absolute dislikes:

1) UAC. I write code and I have to constantly use "run as administrator" and have to avoid getting an epileptic seizure from the constant black screen dimming. I turned off UAC and all is fine now.

2) Hard disk tromping. With 500 GB drives absolutely common and people having oodles and oodles of pictures and files why in the heck does Vista keep thinking it needs to inspect every file? I turned off indexing, and turned off windows defender, but it still has bouts of hard disk tromping.

3) Constant warning of bubbles. That is so annoying that bubbles telling me this that or the other thing keep popping up.

Those three reasons have me yearning to go back to XP. And I finally realized why Vista sucks. They did not do an Apple. Apple has this habit of switching from one technology to another. It hurts if you are stuck with the old technology. But it is better in the long run. Microsoft should have done this with Vista! Or at least what they should have done is run both XP and Vista concurrently where Vista is a brand new kernel that will require some time to adopt.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: ...
by kaiwai on Fri 4th Apr 2008 02:20 in reply to "..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It is not wise choice, but after all - its their company, not mine. If I could make one decision on behalf of Microsoft - I will cease the sales of XP and restart the sales of Windows 2000. In its current state. It is still far more useful system than Vista.

I still regret that I do not purchased one boxed Windows 2000 when it was possible.


Personally I think that NT 3.1 was heading in the right direction; the was a small compact kernel, minimal things running in kernel space, the graphics layer sat in user space - sure, it didn't set the world alight in terms of speed given the hardware of that era but had they stuck to that design we wouldn't see the pissing, the moaning, and the '30% of crashes due to Nvidia drivers' which we see today.

Even the former Windows manager said that things started to come unstuck around 15 years ago when all hell broke loose in the heady days of the 90s. Things being added left, right and centre. Good programming practices thrown out the window in favour of cramming as many features into a product as humanly possible - with little or no regard spent to how those features will impact on the system in the larger picture (security, stability and so forth).

As for Microsoft, they have nothing to lose. When one has 95% of the marketplace, you can pretty much do what ever you damn well please. I do find it funny when I see people here wailing and gnashing their teeth when it was their very purchase of Windows machines that actually gave Microsoft the power they have today. People hate Microsoft as a monster and yet they ignore the very people who made Microsoft they size it is.

It reminds me of all the Southpark episode regarding 'Sprawlmart' - and people protesting about it. Ignoring the fact that it was the people who hated it were the ones who demanded it and shopped at the place. Same can be said for all those people who hate Microsoft and yet use their products - hypocrisy?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: ...
by rcsteiner on Fri 4th Apr 2008 15:51 in reply to "RE: ..."
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Windows NT 3.1 was not considered small and compact at the time. Compared to competitors like OS/2 2.0 and later or Microsoft's own Windows 3.1, NT 3.1's memory requirements were very high.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Windows 2000
by joshv on Fri 4th Apr 2008 12:10 in reply to "..."
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

I loved Windows 2000. I own a jealously guarded Windows 2000 Server CD, which I have used for my server builds over the years.

Recently however I built a brand new Core 2 Duo server and Windows 2000 wouldn't install, even after I slip-streamed the latest service pack. The installation would just hang somewhere in the hardware detection phase. I disabled everything in the BIOS that I could, and set SATA to run in legacy mode, but still no dice. There was just something on that board Windows 2000 couldn't handle (BTW, Ubuntu installed flawlessly, so the board in fine).

Now this might have just been this particular board, but over time you will see more and more of this, because board manufacturers aren't testing Windows 2000, and MS certainly isn't updating it for new hardware.

I guess if I get nostalgic I can always boot up Windows 2000 in vmware.

Reply Parent Score: 1