Just a week ago, reports were cropping up regarding Microsoft's decision to give Vista Business / Ultimate customers a "
downgrade to XP" option amidst complaints over its latest operating system. Now, the Redmond powerhouse has decided to "keep selling Windows XP until the end of June 2008, delaying a scheduled transition to its newer Windows Vista software by five months." Originally, the planned phase out date for XP was January 30th of next year, but now the firm has decided to "extend XP sales in response to
feedback from computer manufacturers who said there were
customers who still wanted to buy the older operating system." Of note, Mike Nash, a Microsoft corporate vice president, was quoted as saying that the company was "a little ambitious to think that it would need to make Windows XP available for only a year after the release of Windows Vista," referring to the fact that it typically makes its older OS available for two years after the launch of a new one.
posted September 28th 2007 3:54PM
Look no further than this thread. Yes, my first post was not "lively debate", but my second one was. And rather than saying "I have no proof that this person is being paid by Microsoft, so I will drop that accusation", you bring it up again. So you are saying that there is not one person that supports Microsoft and is not paid? What about those edits to Wikipedia made about Halo that was from a Sony IP address? Or are we going to hear the "It had to be a janitor" excuse? And yet, I search for your name and I find you defending Sony, from problems with resolution on the PS3 to how Blu-Ray is better (including one post made before Blu-Ray was even released - blind faith in Sony). I could make the acusation that you are paid by Sony, but I will not. First because I have no proof, second maybe it is because you just like their products, and I recognize that is a possibility. But if somebody likes Microsoft products, from Windows, to Zune, to the 360, they are labeled as being paid off by them, just like you are saying that I am. No proof, no trust that maybe I enjoy those products and they work well for me.
Next year: Windows 95!
HA!
But seriously, Vista has problems, So does OSX, I use XP because Vista is still new and im waiting for the bugs to be ironed out, when they are, ill probably get it. As for OSX, Macs are too damn expensive, and i dont feel like dealing with incompatibility issues, i wan't something thats just going to work immediately with everything i have set up, and as much as Apple likes to say thats how OSX is, its not, You would have to have so many developers working nonstop to try and think of test and develop so many aspects.
Which is what makes linux appealing, Id REALLY like to switch to linux, I've never had any problems on linux its fantastic, but then i have to learn how to use it, I have a basic understanding, but if i have to do any compiling/programming I really don't want to be bothered with it.
In Short: They all suck so quit yer bitchin'! ;)
Oh and i thought i might add, remember how much whining there was over XP when it came out? Everyone said stick with Windows 2000. This is the same thing, eventually its going to work fantastically. (Its stupid that we have to wait for a product to work right before using it, but developing an OS is EXTREMELY hard and a TON of work, there are sooooooo many things to it that alot of people don't realize, Apple doesn't have these issues because your stuck on their hardware - Advantage AND Disadvantage, it only has to work on that, Windows has to work with everything almost)
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/13/samsung-bd-p1000-blu-ray-player-delayed-again/
Well..... That's the first good idea the've had since...... ever?
I just wanted to address the comment that there were no good, cheap, under 15" laptops out there with Vista. I don't know where anyone got that idea, but HP has a number of fantastic models in this size/price range, as does Dell. A macbook certainly isn't the only option. The entire idea is ridiculous.
As far as the extension, this really is old news. Just like Windows 2000 was available for years after XP launched, XP will be available for a while even though Vista has launched. If you think about it, what major things did XP have over Windows 2000, initially? The very same comments as people are making now were made then.
I think it is a long-term strategy, because eventually you will buy 2 OS: XP now and later Vista (you can't have XP forever)instead of just 1 (Vista)