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 308112
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not quite
by zugu on Fri 4th Apr 2008 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Not quite"
zugu
Member since:
2007-08-28

That's because you probably invested enough time and effort to make sure that your hardware plays well with Linux, to research, to learn, and you're now enjoying the fruits of your spent time and effort.

What I'm saying here is that most people cannot be bothered to invest time and effort in such endeavors because they have things to do that they consider more important. And Windows does exactly what they need it to do with minimal investment. It's CONVENIENT.

Linux is free as long as your time values nothing.

Also, if Linux works for you it doesn't mean it works for everyone.

Edited 2008-04-04 14:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[3]: Not quite
by unapersson on Fri 4th Apr 2008 14:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Not quite"
unapersson Member since:
2005-07-19

What I'm saying here is that most people cannot be bothered to invest time and effort in such endeavors because they have things to do that they consider more important. And Windows does exactly what they need it to do with minimal investment. It's CONVENIENT.


You must be kidding. Linux generally installs on hardware with no additional hardware driver installation required. Not only that, but just about all the software you'll need is installed as well. Now that is convenience. Do a Windows install and you're grabbing driver install disks right left and centre.

To be fair, I've not tried Vista, so maybe a Vista install also manages without any driver CDs.


Linux is free as long as your time values nothing.


That's original, and possibly true when it was first said ten(?) years ago. Times have changed. Have you got a crib sheet there or something?


Also, if Linux works for you it doesn't mean it works for everyone.


Windows doesn't work for everyone. The fact that Linux doesn't work for everyone doesn't mean it works for no one.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Not quite
by polaris20 on Fri 4th Apr 2008 15:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

You must be kidding. Linux generally installs on hardware with no additional hardware driver installation required. Not only that, but just about all the software you'll need is installed as well. Now that is convenience. Do a Windows install and you're grabbing driver install disks right left and centre.

To be fair, I've not tried Vista, so maybe a Vista install also manages without any driver CDs.


Yes, but when those drivers aren't there, enjoy getting them to work. Ubuntu has done a lot for this issue, but SuSe and Fedora are still far, far behind Windows with this, especially when you're talking brand new hardware.

And really, what's so hard about installing drivers on Windows? Download. Doubleclick. Yes. Yes. Done. No matter if it recognizes hardware right away or not, you're going to be downloading new versions of the drivers anyway, so what's the big deal?

That's original, and possibly true when it was first said ten(?) years ago. Times have changed. Have you got a crib sheet there or something?


Just the other day I wasted 3 hours fighting with SuSe 10.3 with an FX1700 nVidia card. It worked fine with an FX1500, which is no longer available for purchase. I'd call that a waste of time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Not quite
by lemur2 on Fri 4th Apr 2008 14:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Not quite"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That's because you probably invested enough time and effort to make sure that your hardware plays well with Linux, to research, to learn, and you're now enjoying the fruits of your spent time and effort.

What I'm saying here is that most people cannot be bothered to invest time and effort in such endeavors because they have things to do that they consider more important. And Windows does exactly what they need it to do with minimal investment. It's CONVENIENT.

Linux is free as long as your time values nothing.

Also, if Linux works for you it doesn't mean it works for everyone.


You are seriously behind the times.

With Linux, these days you simply get a "LiveCD", and put it in the CDROM tray, and boot the system. The LiveCD will auto-discover all of your hardware that it can and boot straight to the desktop as a guest user. From that state you can use the OS and make sure all of the hardware works. You can do all this without touching the hard disk ... you can even do it if the hard disk is new, blank or even unformatted.

If the hardware works ... you can install Linux from that point by clicking on the "Install to hard disk" icon and answering questions no more complicated than "what is the time, what is the date, in which country are we and what is your name?"

Finally, and tellingly, if you do an apples-with-apples comparison, and compare pre-installed Windows Vista with pre-installed Ubuntu Linux (available from a number of vendors even now from dell) ... then there is absolutely no contest ... Linux is way MORE convenient.

Windows Vista pre-installed comes only with a bare OS.

Ubuntu Linux pre-installed comes with a complete desktop application suite and heaps of tools and utilities.

If your time is valuable ... then get a system with Linux pre-installed. It will save you heaps of time ... ongoing too because it will be far easier to maintain in a working condition.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Not quite
by ssa2204 on Fri 4th Apr 2008 15:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Still being a troll I see, kudos.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Not quite
by zugu on Fri 4th Apr 2008 17:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite"
zugu Member since:
2007-08-28

You don't get it, do you?

Microsoft's success comes from the very fact that the Windows operating system is barebone after the installation. And then the user can add whatever he likes, without fear of bloat.

Now compare this with Linux distributions, where after installation I'm left with software that I don't want.

This kitchen sink approach occurs because in most of the cases Linux distributions are closed systems. Since nobody packages software, apart from the distribution maintainers, the wheel is bound to be reinvented for each distro. A repository is centralized and whatever software resides on the installation media is just a part of that repository. Usually, the stable repositories are frozen and new versions of the different applications and programs do not receive new features.

What good is apt-get then? Yeah, it installs whatever I command it to install, but what if I get more specific and want a certain version of Pidgin? Sorry, that can't be done because it would break the package manager database. Actually, one can really break the OS by mixing repositories. Thank you, but no, thank you. I choose the Windows / Mac OS X approach any day.

With a fresh install of Windows or OS X I can play in any way I want and I am free to install whatever I like. No locked repositories, no fear of breaking system libraries simply by installing a package. This is real freedom and real decentralization. I dare to say this is more in the spirit of free software than the Linux distribution approach is.

"Ubuntu Linux pre-installed comes with a complete desktop application suite and heaps of tools and utilities." - yeah, and pretty much that's it. Oh, I forgot, there's more in the repositories. Pushing beyond this limit breaks the repository system.

Look at Ubuntu Dapper: in order for users to use Firefox 2, the official documentation requires an upgrade to the next release. The whole frigging operating system for a newer version of the browser. Same is going to happen with the current stable release of Ubuntu and Firefox 3. Same is true for Debian and other prominent distributions. It makes baby Jesus cry.

I used Linux for more than a year and deleted it from my HDD when I realized I was actually spending more time making various things to work instead of actually getting things done. What a bummer for productivity.

Linux: a colossal waste of time for the pragmatist.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Not quite
by WereCatf on Fri 4th Apr 2008 15:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Not quite"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

That's because you probably invested enough time and effort to make sure that your hardware plays well with Linux, to research, to learn, and you're now enjoying the fruits of your spent time and effort.

I have 4 different computers here at home, all of them running Linux. (two of them dual-boot with XP) But, I never once checked beforehand if the hardware is actually supported. All of it still does work just fine without a hitch except for the Toshiba SD-card reader on my laptop. Even then it's not a big issue cos it can't even read MMC cards and my phone uses those.

What I'm saying here is that most people cannot be bothered to invest time and effort in such endeavors because they have things to do that they consider more important. And Windows does exactly what they need it to do with minimal investment. It's CONVENIENT.

Windows? Convenient? Hmm, I just had to reinstall XP a few days ago when my harddrive crashed..Well, it was far from convenient. Windows doesn't provide drivers for my motherboard chipset so I had to hunt for those online first, then I had to start installing updates and all that. All in all, I did over 10 reboots just because of all the updating, not to mention how long it took to install those. Only after that I could start installing apps that I actually use...I just fail to see how that is more convenient.

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[4]: Not quite
by zugu on Fri 4th Apr 2008 17:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite"
RE[3]: Not quite
by jaypee on Fri 4th Apr 2008 18:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Not quite"
jaypee Member since:
2005-07-28

That's because you probably invested enough time and effort to make sure that your hardware plays well with Linux, to research, to learn, and you're now enjoying the fruits of your spent time and effort.

What I'm saying here is that most people cannot be bothered to invest time and effort in such endeavors because they have things to do that they consider more important. And Windows does exactly what they need it to do with minimal investment. It's CONVENIENT.

Linux is free as long as your time values nothing.

Also, if Linux works for you it doesn't mean it works for everyone.


That's funny because this is the exact reason I choose Linux over Vista. I have software that ran great in XP that no longer works in Vista so, unless I use it under XP, they might as well be coasters and, no, compatibility mode didn't work. I and friends who have used Vista have had things like printers, scanners and network-attached storage devices not work under Vista. Yes, we can blame the vendor but, I have gotten nearly all my devices to work out of the box in Linux. In fact, the only driver I have had to go out of my way to retrieve was for a newer Atheros wifi card and that took me about 5 mins to get it up an running.

In my spare time, I am a web developer. Linux gives me the tools, out of the box, to be productive. For example, I am working on a project in Django (Python framework) and, out of the box, I get a web server, MySQL and Postgresql database server, Python and any other things I may want to use for development, in addition to a desktop. I just then install, via a package manager, tools I need like the adminstrative tools (GUI) for my databases and the IDE (Eclipse with a python development plugin) that allow me to work. Heck, I can even download the Django framework itself via a package manager and have it installed on the spot.

In Windows, I would have to search for these tools in various places across the internet and very likely need to understand how to set up things like environment variables to run things like Python and...gasp...I might even have to use the command line for a couple of things.

Now, granted, in Linux or Windows, doing something like this would require some expertise.

But, let's go back to Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack will likely need help regardless of what OS he uses. Nearly everyone I know uses Windows and comes to me on a regular basis to get things fixed. They come to me not understanding why the software they purchased worked on XP and doesn't work on Vista -- they just say that it's Windows so, it all should work. Hell, it's still hard to get Joe Sixpack to stop downloading any and everything of the internet (legal or otherwise) without an antivirus program. Also, I don't see Joe Sixpack regularly updating their software unless prompted to do so. I check stats on various websites I either run or support and see that people still use browsers as old as IE5.5 so, they would likely shrug their shoulder when told they didn't have the latest Firefox or OpenOffice.

Finally, it's hard to get Joe Sixpack to understand why there are some 4-5 versions of Vista and that the "Vista-capable" PC can't run all the cool effects or that Media Center thing that they saw on some other computer they were playing around on at Best Buy because theirs came with Vista "Home Basic" and not "Home Premium". Explain it to them and ,then, watch their eyes glaze over.

Ease of use is a very relative term and to borrow from what you said, "if Windows works for you it doesn't mean it works for everyone."

Edited 2008-04-04 18:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Not quite
by ari-free on Fri 4th Apr 2008 19:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Not quite"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

well if they can understand that when buying a car, you don't necessarily get the sun roof and the GPS unless they pay more for an options package then they can understand why this is the case with vista.
What they might not understand is if some software doesn't work and other software does.

Reply Parent Score: 1