Microsoft weighs in on "Save XP" petition, sort of

It's no secret that there's quite a few folks hesitant (to say the least) to upgrade to Windows Vista, and Microsoft has somewhat accommodated them by extending sales of the tried-and-true Windows XP until June of 2008. That has unsurprisingly done little to satisfy most people, however, and some 75,000 of 'em have even signed a petition started by Infoworld that's attempting to "Save XP." After a couple of weeks, that now seems to have caught Microsoft's attention, although the company's response likely isn't what they were looking for. As Computerworld Australia reports, Microsoft says it's aware of the petition but that it's "listening first and foremost to feedback we hear from partners and customers about what makes sense based on their needs." As Slashdot points out, that statement's a little odd considering that most of the folks signing the petition are Microsoft customers, but either way it seems pretty clear that Microsoft is intent on showing XP the door as soon as possible.

[Via Slashdot]

[John @ Feb 7th 2008 1:35PM]

I signed it. Vista is so bloated it's mindboggling. I wish they had a downgrader you could download.

[Chris @ Feb 7th 2008 1:38PM]

Maybe you should try Windows 3.1? XP is just so bloated compared to that.

[Homer J @ Feb 7th 2008 1:43PM]

This might actually be a good thing. As companies chug along doing what they want to, instead of listening to what the consumer desires, innovators come up with solutions.

Perhaps this is why Apple's market share is projected to be 20% by 2012. Personally, having just bought my first Mac, after 10 or 15 PC's (in a row) I think the 20% number is short of the mark.... No bloat wear, 3 minute setup time, and bundled software that works - what a concept!

[Anton @ Feb 7th 2008 1:46PM]

@Homer J

Just because it's an article about Windows, doesn't mean you should be preaching the word of Mac.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 7th 2008 1:51PM]

Bloated smoated. Vista is not bloated. It does more with your hardware. That HD thrashing that is going on? Vista prioritizes I/O based on need. So there is some low level IO going on all the time but if you start doing something in an app that needs it it prioritizes the app. Memory. People are freaking that Vista takes so much memory. Clue: Vista is preallocating the memory. So the OS will take advantage of whatever is available and if you start up an app that needs that memory Vista will hand it over. Tell me what is the point of having memory if nothing is using it.
Finally there is the GPU. MS has moved the processing of the GUI off the CPU onto the CPU. Every damn OS on the planet is doing this, or has already done this in OS X's case. Before you could run an OS with 16MB ov VRAM. The simple fact is that Vista is catching up and people are bitching that they are doing that. Get yourself even a 2 year old Direct X 9 supported Vcard with 128MB of VRAM and things will be fine.

What it boils down to is this. Everyone has gotten comfortable with XP. Shit its 7 year old OS. You should be by now. XP is still a perfectly fine OS. I have it dual booting my MBP. But the simple fact is that MS has retooled Windows to take advantage of current hardware and it needed be be done. Think what CPU speeds were, what GPU speeds and sizes were back in 2001-2002.
The same basic bitching was happening then with XP the difference was that they didn't make nearly as many under the hood changes from 2K->XP as XP-> Vista and THAT is why there is more bitching going on now.

So make your choice.

Stay on XP and be happy.
Save up some money and upgrade your desktop GPU and RAM.
Save up more money and upgrade your laptop. I picked up a referb 2007 Gateway Tablet PC for just under $900. Vista, with RC SP1, runs flawlessly on this thing.

So please. Before bitching about an OS KNOW what the hell you are talking about. Read about the tech behind it, read some of the whitepapers. Educate your damn self before you start bashing something.

[skulldriveshaft @ Feb 7th 2008 1:54PM]

@Chris the smart ass monkey wrench

Vista is a little trickier to unbloat, but the hardware required, if all you're doing is spreadsheets, emails, and invoices, doesn't really make sense.

Microsoft needs another injection to fix their ticks, and then they'll be fine, until the next ticks start showing up.

They have gone from breaking programs, to breaking hardware, so the ecosystem inside my case is becoming more closed and specialized. A PC is usually a pre-selected collection of parts from the manufacturer that you can selectively upgrade, replace, or remove.

It is now going to become a Software Company's approved hardware collection.

Time to change the software then.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 7th 2008 1:55PM]

Oh and I forgot one. Services: People freak when they see the number of services running in Vista by Default. The simple fact is that Vista exposes more serves in the service manager to the user then they did in XP. Boot up to the command console in XP and take a look at how many hidden services there are.

[Shadow08 @ Feb 7th 2008 2:01PM]

Exactly, John. I remember hearing the same complaints back when XP came out. "OMG it requires 64MB of RAM on XP and only 32 on 98! XP is such a bloated piece of crap!"

People need to realize that they will need to upgrade their 4 year old PC to run and be capable of these next generation improvements.

Without raising the bar, there will not be many improvements, hence the reason why my just-turned-4-year-old PC can still do the exact same things that new PCs in the store can do.

[Dale @ Feb 7th 2008 2:02PM]

@Jon Doe: Reading white papers about the technology behind Vista won't make its flaws any less irritating to the average user.

There is always a big bubble of negativity when software is upgraded, and you should take some of it with a pinch of salt, but considering modern hardware is much more powerful - to quote you "Think what CPU speeds were, what GPU speeds and sizes were back in 2001-2002." - an operating system designed to make better use of this hardware should not feel *more* sluggish.

[Homer J @ Feb 7th 2008 2:09PM]

@ Anton,

Its an OS article expect comparisons.

@ John Doe,

Why them do I have to reformat the HD and load a fresh copy of windows every time I buy a new PC?

[Ty @ Feb 7th 2008 2:18PM]

But it doesn't feel more sluggish on my box. It feels exactly the same...

Core2Duo E6600
GeForce 8800 GTX
2 gigs of RAM
1 TB RAID 5 array
300 GB Raid 0 array

Granted, I have a DirectX 10 graphics card so there's a compelling reason to switch, but still. Same percentage of CPU usage at idle compared to XP, memory usage is totally acceptable considering what memory it is using is actually going to something helpful. And if you don't like the hard disk indexing, guess what... YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. It's stupid to use with RAID arrays IMO.

[Evan @ Feb 7th 2008 2:36PM]

Why should we need to upgrade our PCs? There is no excuse for requiring a gigabyte of memory and a gigahertz CPU just to add two numbers together in a spreadsheet. Vista requires 1000 times the memory and CPU requirements of Windows 3.1, however it does not offer 1000 times the functionality (perhaps 5 times).

[Ty @ Feb 7th 2008 2:48PM]

Evan: If all you ever do is add two numbers together in a spreadsheet, then I pity you, and you should absolutely use Windows 3.1 and the latest version of Excel for 3.1. It should meet your needs just fine.

[Loonie @ Feb 7th 2008 2:58PM]

Remember when the job of an OS was to run other programs?

[Tech^Cellfish @ Feb 7th 2008 3:05PM]

They have if you have business or ultimate OEM install ;)

[Tom @ Feb 7th 2008 3:18PM]

I still wish they supported windows 2000.

Best windows EVER.

[Jarhead2012 @ Feb 7th 2008 3:14PM]

There's only one thing I have against Vista, and it's the fact that a lot of software that works on my XP system won't work on Vista. I'm a musician as well as a tech nerd, and I have a lot of recording software and equipment that will not work with Vista. I also am on a budget. I could install a virtual PC, but I don't have the money to buy another OS just for that. If Vista's compatibility issues were fixed, I would most definitely upgrade.

[mcnugent @ Feb 7th 2008 3:25PM]

bloated? what is it bloated with? windows mail? windows calendar? windows media player? if you include those programs, people say it is bloated. if you exclude them, people complain that they arent getting enough. if you make them optional to install during setup, people complain that setup takes too long. if you include them on a disc, people will ignore the disc or complain that they have to setup their computer. the problem is that the bulk of the populous are stupid, ignorant SOBs and you know it. they arent happy unless they are unhappy.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 7th 2008 3:34PM]

@ Homer

"Why them do I have to reformat the HD and load a fresh copy of windows every time I buy a new PC?"


The reason is simple. People want cheap, and as a result cheap ass, computers. So OEM's do the equivalent of selling ad space on their desktop in their customized roll of Windows. I know of VERY few OEM's who roll their own OS well. Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, HP all make shit for a customized OS and as such THAT is why you need to reinstall, and is why I always recommend anyone who gets a new computer to nuke it....its the only way to be sure.
Windows itself with a number of helper apps is a solid piece of software out of the box....for the most part. I'm not going to spit in your face and call it rain and similarly I'm not going to say Windows is a flawless piece of software. I run Windows. I run OS X on my MBP. I also run a couple flavors of *nix. All have their strengths, and sadly all have their weaknesses. Vista's weaknesses prior to SP1 outweighed its strengths and frankly as of SP1 if you have the hardware to run Vista, you can stomach product activation (I can't but I got this copy of Vista Business free.), and have the money to blow on it there is starting to be fewer and fewer reasons not to use Vista. Sadly the biggest is still there: software compatibility is still an issue. My Onetouch blood glucose meter software that syncs the results from the meter to the desktop software doesn't work. Its still using MDAC and it simply refuses to work in Vista....thank god for Virtual PC though.

[Alex @ Feb 7th 2008 5:02PM]

This is why i love Linux. It is always going to be the same thing that you bought (so to speak, as it's usually free) into; no surprises. And for the most part, the users are the ones who steer it in the direction that it needs to go in.

And btw, for the guy who was complaining about preaching the word of Mac: If it weren't for Linux, i'd BE a Mac user too. It is sooooo much better than Winblows could EVER be.

http://LinuxIntro.com -- down with Micro$oft!

[Greg @ Feb 7th 2008 5:29PM]

Am I the only one whose actually tried running Vista on cheap hardware? All those people who say "oh you'll need to upgrade" need to actually try it out themselves. Vista scales all the way from best of the best effects right back down to the Windows 2000 interface based on performance analysis of your PC. It automatically determines the optimal configuration and let me tell you that it flies on a P4 3Ghz with 500mb RAM and a no name video card with no tweaks necessary. If you're telling me that's an upgrade then what are you doing reading engadget? Vistas far from perfect and I won't be switching to it anytime soon, but for god's sake can people please stop saying that you need to buy really expensive hardware to run Vista even if you don't plan to do anything intense with it. That's just plain wrong.

[FrannckyB @ Feb 7th 2008 6:38PM]

I love all you people that keep praising Vista, saying it's the users fault that they refuse to get used to new things.

The fact remains, that it takes 3 minutes to transfer a 1.3 gig file, while Vista takes 15 MINUTES ?!

That in my view is what makes it a piece of crap. I did try it and working in TV production, it useless. It crippled my workflow, as opening video sequence or working with huge file for HD became a nightmare. And to tell you the truth, it was made me switch to Mac OS, as I was just plain and tired of having to deal with Windows.

[jonouk @ Feb 7th 2008 8:17PM]

@Alex with the linuxintro.co blog

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1984_3522704

You are going to get many people turn away from it with your first paragraph. What are you? 14?

[krunal patel @ Feb 18th 2008 7:23PM]

@ Homer J
"
Why them do I have to reformat the HD and load a fresh copy of windows every time I buy a new PC?"

ummm because you like to make things complicating?

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 7th 2008 1:36PM]

Heh. Those 75,000 people must have missed the memo. MS doesn't give a shit about what consumers think. Now maybe if 75,000 corporations signed this. Maybe..

[Josh @ Feb 7th 2008 1:40PM]

they could just start charging for service packs like apple (leopard)

[Vadim P. @ Feb 7th 2008 1:42PM]

Too late, I already upgraded - further upgrades will be painless, free, get done in under several hours, and keep my personal data in place (yay ubuntu).

[s1pacrat @ Feb 29th 2008 10:26PM]

I made the same upgrade a couple months ago and, I must say, watching these battles from the sidelines is much more fun. Seriously, guys... Ubuntu works. And I'm not even a hacker or anything.

[greg @ Feb 7th 2008 1:43PM]

you dont' think ms is making money on additional copies of xp? Where do u think all that money goes then? In a black hole? They already put in the development cost.

[earbutter @ Feb 7th 2008 1:44PM]

Microsoft could release small pox and 1,000,000,000 people would buy it and they know it. Don't look for them to panic and do anything because 75,000 people signed a petition.

[Don @ Feb 7th 2008 1:45PM]

Get over it! If you don't want to upgrade then don't. Move to OSX or Linux. Microsoft made it so easy for anyone to operate a computer... Some shouldn't. Look at it this way... if you like the software on the new iPod touch you have to buy new hardware, or deal with what you have. If you want to watch HDTV and your TV doesn't support it then you have to buy a new TV. If you want to run Vista and your computer doesn't support it then upgrade... or STFU. I'm sure Apple would welcome you to their side. Yes, XP was good and stable. On the right system so is Vista. How many of you were around when XP first came out? Do you not remember all this BS when it first came out? What about Windows 98 and 98SE, or Windows 95? I would never want to go back to the days of Windows 3.11 or anything in between. Each time it gets better and better.

[JeffNLA @ Feb 7th 2008 1:51PM]

Great post Don! It's been this way thru consumer history. After I signed the lease on my current car (BMW), I read the next model year is getting upgraded.
That's life and business.

I just put vista service pack 1 on my PC's - Vista is fine now. yes, people with old ghetto hardware still won't be happy - too bad!

[skulldriveshaft @ Feb 7th 2008 2:08PM]

You get to return your lease at BMW or sell and pay the buy-out, whatever.

I'll be returning and getting a couple more new ones, and of course they will be better, but your example doesn't have a parallel at all.

This is software, you already own the hardware, after going to Vista, the software tells you that the hardware needs to upgrade. If you were doing perfectly fine before Vista, that means Vista needs more hardware resources to do exactly what you were doing already with an older OS.

That's more like the you taking your BMW to scheduled service, and them flashing your car computer to require 100 octane fuel, and it will not run on anything other than 100 octane.

Your car hasn't changed, your driving requirements have not changed, but all of a sudden what is required to make your BMW work has changed.

Hell, I think the Mini Cooper is a lower cost to lease than it is to finance a Honda Civic, but that's a totally different conversation. And the Mini Cooper still asks for Premium gasoline.

Vista for some makes sense, but for those companies trying to stay afloat, this could the nail in the coffin.

[JeffNLA @ Feb 7th 2008 2:46PM]

Skull, respectfully, I do not agree with your analogy.

I’ve been in business for years. As my old very expensive copier got worse… we trashed it for a digital one that was a fraction of the cost. It is 100 times better too.

Dell sells a Dual Core 2 system without monitor for $319. It will run Visa perfectly; I just got one for my parents.

I’ve been into computers for years. I received a degree in Computer Science in 1987.
What I am doing today was a pipe dream just a few years ago. I have a vista media server, streaming HD video through my gigabit network in my house. Sometimes it blows me away.. and I’ve involved with it every day.

By the way… my BMW rear ties need to be replaced (16K miles). Because of the angle (caster, camber I’m not sure) a postage size stamp of rubber is worn out on the inside edge. The rest of the tire is FINE.

How much to replace two friggrn tires A GRAND!

That’s right - $500 apiece. I went online and shopped too – best I can save is $100 on both. No OEM replacements for my car – I have a BMW 650i

[Zak @ Feb 7th 2008 1:48PM]

@ Josh - Apple doesn't charge for service packs. They only charge for major updates. Service packs are, and always have been, free.

[Kendall @ Feb 7th 2008 1:48PM]

This is how Microsoft will pass the torch to Apple, by ignoring the obvious truth that Vista is hardly a worthy successor to XP in the public's eyes. Look how many want to switch back to XP. I know I couldn't take another tick when I had Vista, and i'm pretty patient when it comes to computers.

This is a DISASTER for Microsoft that is never said because everyone wants to tip toe around the truth that it really isn't as good as it could of been and that it just paved the way for more business for Steve Jobs and crew.

XP was buggy in the beginning but not like this. I won't bother to go back to Vista since XP works just fine now regardless of all the patches it has. Just waiting for SP3 to fill the gaps.

[Kendall @ Feb 7th 2008 1:58PM]

I owned a pre-Win98 computer Don and both Windows 98se and XP were not as headache inducing to use, to get working right, as Vista.

Windows ME and Vista both share that behavior in droves. The only ones Vista work for correctly are those with a top of the line computer who have tweaked everything to get it to work. Some of us don't want to buy that kind of work.

[carl @ Feb 7th 2008 2:31PM]

I built an inexpensive computer, threw Vista on there, and it automatically loaded all necessary drivers and worked perfectly from the outset. 1 month later and I've had no complaints so far. No tweaking necessary, period.

[insertAlias @ Feb 7th 2008 3:45PM]

My dell laptop is hardly top of the line. I have tried it with XP and Vista. You know what? Most of my apps actually launch faster with Vista. No joke. Visual Studio launches in a snap. Prefetch is a great thing.

[sjdurfey @ Feb 7th 2008 7:01PM]

@kendall

my hp from 2 1/2 years ago, with on-board video and an ancient 3800+ AMD, runs Vista flawlessly. so i really dont know what you're talking about.

[tom @ Feb 7th 2008 1:50PM]

I want to sign the petition, link please?

[Don @ Feb 7th 2008 1:56PM]

www.apple.com

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Luigi193 @ Feb 7th 2008 1:57PM]

I don't disagree with you Jew... but what about the supposed windows 7 that is suppose to be out next year? Thats two years between releases...which is sorta the same with OS X releases... the last 3 have been 2 years apart.

BUT you are right...

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 7th 2008 1:58PM]

Zak tell that to my issues with Finder and network share in Tiger that were fixed in Leopard. Apple ignores issues until the next major update.

[Alan Strangis @ Feb 7th 2008 1:59PM]

The HYPE around Vista's crapitude far outweighs it's actual shortcomings.

[Adam @ Feb 7th 2008 1:59PM]

I personally love XP. Vista is OK, so long as you have hardware that plays nice with it. From what I can see, it appears that Vista is turning into another Windows ME...especially considering Microsoft is already (publicly) working on Vista's successor.

http://www.livingwithanerd.com

[tom @ Feb 7th 2008 2:49PM]

The issue is, I can justify to pay more for the vista O/S and hardware, when xp can do just as good (ever better and faster).

You can say I am naive and stingy, but I don't see one persuading reason and benefit to change over. It is nothing but problems about compatibility and more money out of pocket

[Teetdogs @ Feb 7th 2008 4:27PM]

@tom

How do you know these things? If you haven't used it dont tell me the things that are wrong, Vista is a fine operating system I have no complaints and I am not even running SP1 everything works just fine, I remember when XP came out and it came pre-loaded on a dell I hated it so much I went back to 2000 because of the same reasons everyone is saying about Vista in the end XP turned out to better just as Vista will turn out to be better than XP and when Windows 7 comes out, guess what is gonna happen, everyone will be screaming about how much better Vista is and there is no reason to upgrade blah blah blah, so in closing just try it if it doesn't work for you then you have a valid complaint. With 300,000,000 users its hard to make everyone happy.

[Zach @ Feb 7th 2008 4:48PM]

something something something. something something. something something something something. something. something something something something.
(inserts stupid link here)
*didn't click it, it's crap isn't it.
STOP TRAFFIC TROLLING!

[Scott @ Feb 7th 2008 4:58PM]

I've used both, and the FACT is that Vista runs slower *on the SAME hardware* as XP. Couple that with the fact that Vista offers little real world benefits over XP and you have the situation we have now.