Microsoft announced that it was extending technical support for home Windows XP operating systems, a signal that it was not abandoning them for Vista software launching next week. The Redmond, Washington software giant said the ‘support life cycle’ for Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Media centre Edition would be stretched to April 2009. Similar support would be provided for users of Windows XP Professional, according to Microsoft.
Wager… $50 says it’ll be extended longer than that, come April 30 2009.
Edited 2007-01-25 01:14
That is just your wishful thinking.
XP will get dropped, as has 2000, ME and 98.
It is called progress, and whether you like something or not, it is soon to be obsolete.
That is just your wishful thinking.
XP will get dropped, as has 2000, ME and 98.
It is called progress, and whether you like something or not, it is soon to be obsolete.
Who’s the wishful thinker here? Notwithstanding the fact that Microsoft technology is obsolete anyway, noone but astroturfing, Microsoft-worshipping nitwits on internet forums wants Vista.
XP->Vista is definitely NOT progress.
>Who’s the wishful thinker here? Notwithstanding the fact
>that Microsoft technology is obsolete anyway, noone but
>astroturfing, Microsoft-worshipping nitwits on internet ç
>forums wants Vista.
Sentences as generic as that one “Microsoft technology is obsolete anyway” are usually difficult to believe in.
I am a FSF associate member and a free software advocate, but I do not believe that each of the Microsoft technologies are obsolete at all.
If you want, we can argue on concrete ones, but I like some of the Microsoft technologies (I don’t mind if they are copied or inspired by another ones if they are well implemented) … another complete different thing about this matter is the company ethics, which I mostly dislike. Anyway, I don’t believe that being unethical make your technology obsolete after all.
OK, maybe I mean “obsolescent”, as in “slowly becoming obsolete”, rather than being obsolete right now.
Regardless, if Microsoft is forced to go to open standards, then if it doesn’t open source some of its technologies they are in danger of becoming obsolete. People like me are already deciding they can do without Windows the next time they buy COTS consumer equipment. If this Vista debacle proves to be a long-term trend, rather than just a hiccup, Microsoft are in deep shit – they will not disappear completely, but neither will they maintain their preeminent status as the dominant IT company.
Remember, you could conceivably date the beginning of DEC’s slow decline to about 1982 – that means from the start of the decline till the takeover by Compaq (in 1997) was fifteen years. In 1988, the year after IBM launced its ill-fated PS/2, they (DEC) were still dithering about whether a computer company could be successful without controlling its own architecture. Who in 1982 foresaw DEC would be gone by the end of the century?
so i guess I’ll have to get a new pc in 2 years
or the other option…
They shouldn’t stop selling or updating XP until the end of 2008 in my opinion. They shouldn’t stop supporting it until 2010 or later.
Of course with SP1 for Vista coming out in the middle of this year they are probably going to start pushing XP updates back and there will probably be no SP 3 for XP.
Of course we all have the option to move to something else. Well, we at least have the option to think about moving to something else.
Even if Microsoft usually tries to force upgrade for their customers in each of the products it sells (Windows, Office, …), one must admit that the support cycle for Windows is far better than it is for most of the GNU/Linux distributions.
I mean, we are at 2007, and Windows 2000 has had support till recently (5 or 6 year is an eternity at the computing world), does anyone remember a GNU/Linux distribution from the year 2000 ? I think that this is a very important thing for GNU/Linux to get more space in enterprises.
There are a lot of machines where patching and tweaking is not an option, just because lacking qualified people or because there are simple too many machines to update, where a distribution system like Windows update, Debian apt, Trustix swup or similar would be more than welcome … but one that lasts for at least 4 or 5 years.
Agreed. Linux support should be out in the open more.
The previous version of Ubuntu was called Ubuntu 6.06 LTS
The LTS stood for Long Term Support, with Ubuntu supporting it on the desktop for 3 years and on the server for 6 years.
So there you go, a Linux system supported for 6 years, and with the development cycle of Ubuntu, that is some promise for them to make.
Since the average linux user doesn’t pay for support, and the average Windows user does, I’d damn right expect Windows support to go very far.
OTOH, nothing prevents you from maintaining your linux system on your own. You have source code access and the right to modify it as you please. It’s not that difficult to take a Redhat 6.0 system and bring up to date (oh well, pretty much all packages must be updated, but it’s possible).
OTOH, nothing prevents you from maintaining your linux system on your own. You have source code access and the right to modify it as you please. It’s not that difficult to take a Redhat 6.0 system and bring up to date (oh well, pretty much all packages must be updated, but it’s possible).
Not only that, but it allows other companies to take advantage of the available source code – which is available not only to customers but to all and sundry – and provide support to customers unwilling or unable to do it for themselves. I think we are going to see a lot more companies doing Linux support as a “standalone business” if Linux continues to improve and grow.
>Since the average linux user doesn’t pay for support, and
> the average Windows user does, I’d damn right expect
>Windows support to go very far.
I was talking about enterprise Linux usage, sorry if that was not clear enough in my first post. Companies are willing to pay for Linux support.
>OTOH, nothing prevents you from maintaining your linux
> system on your own. You have source code access and
>the right to modify it as you please. It’s not that
>difficult to take a Redhat 6.0 system and bring up to
>date (oh well, pretty much all packages must be
>updated, but it’s possible).
Yes, I’ve done something similar to that just for hobby at my home, now do you want to talk about several production servers ? You do agree that an apt like system with distributed binaries is far better, don’t you ? And if you pay for support, longer support is welcome too.
One of the things that gives linux kernel hackers more freedom is the possibility to change API and ABI at their will (kind of, when they think it is needed), and this is just the thing that makes support harder, so that sometimes you have to upgrade lots a lots of packages for a “simple” thing. That costs time, be it mine or my Linux company support. And that’s why I’d like long term binary support from Linux companies for whom pays it.
Up to now, XP is the best game platform for a PC.
and your point would be ?????????
No, honestly, from your post, I take it you are not old enough to remember the DOS games.
Not only were the games excellent, but you had the added fun of getting them to run in the first place.
You can simulate this with a copy of DOSBox and some Abandonware DOS games.
BTW… DOSBox is more compatible with old games than XP.
Edited 2007-01-26 00:19
EOL 2009?
That’s expected considering the delay of Vista. Anyway, in 2009 ReactOS 1.0 will have been around for a while. So don’t worry, be happy