Microsoft may extend Windows XP "downgrade" deadline by six months

First off, we'll warn you that these reports are currently unconfirmed by the suits in Redmond, but word has it that Microsoft is working with at least one OEM to have the Windows XP "downgrade" deadline pushed out from January 2009 to at least July 31, 2009. That's according to an e-mail sent from Microsoft to an unspecified partner company, which purportedly details a plan to work with other buddies in pushing that deadline out another half year. Given the results thus far, we suppose we're not too surprised to hear that firms are still clamoring for the XP option, but one wonders when this madness will ever end. Will folks really be opting for XP on new machines after Windows 7 is out?

[Via Download Squad]

[Desi_D @ Oct 4th 2008 6:23PM]

"Will folks really be opting for XP on new machines after Windows 7 is out?"

You betcha! If it's bloated crap like Vista is.

[boe @ Oct 4th 2008 6:30PM]

Desi_D said -

"Will folks really be opting for XP on new machines after Windows 7 is out?"

You betcha! If it's bloated crap like Vista is.

Can I have an AMEN!?!?!

I'll be very happy to go to Windows 7 if it is good but frankly I'll never ever used Vista again. I gave it a try during beta testing - reported how it sucked to MS and they said it was just me who thought it sucked. I tried it again when it was released - still sucked. I tried it again when SP1 came out - even on my 3GHz 2GIG 320GB SATA system with an 8800GT with 512MB - vista sucks. I have to deal with it all the time when a client buys a system from Best Buy or Dell or HP or Sony or Lenovo and asks me to upgrade them to XP.

I run XP and Windows Server 2008 (which I admit uses most of the Vista code but doesn't suck in performance like Vista)

Yes I've read all the posts from the fanboys using Vista on their 286 computers and tape dispensers and it runs great for them - and that is fantastic buy any OS you want - this is America - the more choices the better. Frankly for every single person I support - they've all asked for XP after testing Vista. I know only one person who uses Vista and he runs both Vista and XP.

[Sudo @ Oct 4th 2008 6:33PM]

@boe
Cry some more.

[fred @ Oct 4th 2008 6:39PM]

I'm running it on a P4 2ghz machine with 1gb of ram, and yet it seems to work just fine.

Note: Dont run it on a PC from 2004 and you wont have issues.

[Cardbored @ Oct 4th 2008 6:48PM]

People will opt for Windows 7 if they don't repeat the mistakes they made with Vista.

Put it on machines that can actually run it and get driver/application support BEFORE it's released.

[Good_Bytes @ Oct 4th 2008 6:51PM]

"reported how it sucked to MS and they said it was just me who thought it sucked"
Oh YES, because Microsoft actually contacted you. SUUUUUUREEEE...
Go back to your Mac, fanboy!

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Oct 4th 2008 7:16PM]

Complaining about Vista bloat is so fucking played out. Find something new to whine about.

I have a feeling you'd love Windows Mojave.

Idiot.

[HemanC @ Oct 4th 2008 7:49PM]

I ran Vista when it came out for a few months on my P4 2.66 1gig (max out) and a tablet tc1100 1.5gig. There are lags everytime everywhere. It runs fine on my wife's more current laptop though. I'll wait until Windows 7 come out to upgrade. Hopefully Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 come out AFTER I upgrade.

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Oct 4th 2008 8:05PM]

Dude, you are trying to use Vista on a tc1100? Have you lost your mind? That thing can BARELY run XP.

[brandon @ Oct 4th 2008 8:44PM]

In my experience, Vista runs perfect if running as a clean install. With an upgrade, though, it feels like I'm computing through a dial-up connection.

[Jon @ Oct 4th 2008 8:47PM]

MS have already admitted that Vista is the starting point for Win7... so I guess people will still be begging for XP.

Realistically XP won't last forever so you've got 3 choices:
1) submit and move to Vista/Win7
2) move to Mac & put up with the prices etc
3) move to Linux

I took the leap to Linux... learning curve no worse than it would have been for Mac and everything running super-smooth & reliable.
G'bye Steve *waves*

[vijay @ Oct 4th 2008 9:09PM]

After their failure with vista on performance now hope its not the turn of XP next few months for release?

[Taylor @ Oct 4th 2008 11:11PM]

I might be in the minority here, but I'm a Mac/Vista user (Vista's running on a dedicated PC I built myself, and OS X on my MacBook). I love both.

[Marrvia @ Oct 4th 2008 11:15PM]

Vista works perfectly fine on my 4 year old computer, and a computer I just built recently for about $400. I don't see what all the fuss is about. I can't recall any Vista related problems in well over a year.

[HemanC @ Oct 5th 2008 12:38AM]

XP runs fine on the tc1100. It is the tc1000 with the Transmeta CPU that sucks. The reason why I upgraded my tc1100 is because some other dude claims Vista runs fine on the tc1100. It was a lot of work to get all the drivers to work with Vista too. I was curious. Big mistake trying to run a non-current machine on a current OS.

[Mikeweezer @ Oct 5th 2008 12:54AM]

I ran Vista for about 3 months on my new Dell Precision M2300 - Core2D, 4GB Ram.

I really, really wanted to like Vista. I told alot of people in the first couple weeks how I didn't understand what the big deal was, and that it was great! (I'm a previous Mac addict, which is wearing off) . ...Then the sh@#$t happened. My Windows update stopped working, host processes would randomly stop, blue screens of death... ugh.

MS Support eventually just told me to reinstall - I did, back to XP. What a disappointment.

[Knives_Out @ Oct 5th 2008 2:27AM]

what's the windows 7 release date?

[urandom @ Oct 5th 2008 5:54AM]

@Mio

The default sudo configuration, even in Ubuntu, is a bit more security oriented than that of Vista. Admittedly, typing your own password, instead of the admin one, and the timeout are just bad practices, it is still better than allowing a user to just click a button to proceed. Users will just start dismissing this dialog, without reading it, if it requires so little interaction. With a user input, even their own password, users tend to stop and think about what's going on.

I'm not familiar with UAC to comment on anything else. I just know that sudo can be made to work for only some users/groups, ask the admin password, have no delay, or have only a 'session' delay (invoking sudo with the same user in a different terminal will start its own timeout).

[LondonConsultant @ Oct 5th 2008 6:10AM]

Madness? THIS IS WINDOWS XP!

[CraigJ @ Oct 5th 2008 11:20AM]

I run Vista-64 SP1, on a newer dual core box with 256 MB video card, dual 7200 RM SATA 3.0 drives and 4GB of RAM. Vista sucks on this machine...

Let me re-phrase. Vista runs fine on this machine. It's juat that XP runs 30% to 40% faster, and I can load more apps at one time using the 3GB addressable by XP.

The Microsoft Vista fanboys are just as myopic as the Apple fanboys. This time around Microsoft fucked up with Vista. If you take that personally you have a real problem with your priorities.

[olmo47 @ Oct 5th 2008 1:23PM]

OK!
I have question help please: I got a HP dv4t came with *Vista "crap" Entertainment Edition* I also have a Dellm700 came with XP Pro.

I have try to install the XP from dell into the "dv4t"......machine said not!...

I am thinking to purchase a XP from the store (any) and get rid of Vista!?.....my question is to you gurus:

should I wait for Windows 7? or get XP now and ..what ever will be...will be?

Please help????

olmo47

[CraigJ @ Oct 5th 2008 2:40PM]

Facts suck, I know. Maybe they will get it right with 7. I wouldn't count on it.

[CosterMonger @ Oct 6th 2008 10:26AM]

XP, once sucked... but now it is very creamy: now that that spyware is all but defeated, and Microsoft has upped their response times in patching serious flaws. So people who have weathered the turmoil of XP in their little rustic shack have rejoiced the storm is gone and now there is just bright shinny rainbows!

Vista is fine *cough*, people had to immediately weather storms of cat's and dog's... feces, but rejoice all your wait was worth it, you can now enjoy your, slightly more, stable OS for a year then you'll hear fanboys telling you to switch to Windows 7.

[Ernie @ Oct 6th 2008 5:22PM]

Windows 7 is going to be a joke. its a build off of an already bad operating system...Windows Vista. Does anyone remember Windows ME? 7 is another ME!!! XP needs to stay around for awhile

[wilcoholic @ Oct 4th 2008 6:23PM]

Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Vista runs like a machine on my computer. Added security and eyecandy is a bonus too.

[Charles @ Oct 4th 2008 6:30PM]

On any given computer XP will run faster than Vista and your two advantages are hardly compelling, especially if by security you mean UAC.

While I'm reserving judgement Windows 7 is looking a lot like Vista with a new name to escape the negative connotations. The way thigns are headed I wouldn't be surprised if I was still using XP right up to 2014 when the support ends.

[Good_Bytes @ Oct 4th 2008 7:17PM]

UAC is same thing under Linux. I see no Linux users complaining. Heck they have to type command lines and password. Here it's a button press. Microsoft will NEVER remove UAC.
And beside UAC can be removed by a freaking check-box. I see you NEVER used or even know what Windows Vista actually is.

SOrry, that Vista doesn't run on your 200$ dell laptop that can't run XP properly. But on a 2007 and up machine Vista runs perfectly smoothly, and faster than XP.
I don't understand what is bloat about Vista. It just come with applications, it has NOTHING to do with your computer performance.

Oh you are talking about the extra RAM it takes. If you bother to read an instruction manual in your life... you will see that the reason for Vista to take more RAM is as follows:
- SuperFetch in action. This system close to the Vista kernal (Core of Windows), learned what application you load, and loads it before you do. The space it "takes" on your RAM is no reserved, it will free it as needed. If you use Vista with 1 or 2GB of RAM, and you run a heavy game like Crysis, you will see that the second you close it, Task manager will show that only ~350MB is used, and it will increase to a certain amount. This amount varies depending on what application you run. If you just use a web browser you can see that after several month it will take much less as what it initial took after you installed Vista. In result you application can easily run 6 times faster. Therefore, no one can say that Vista is slower than XP.

- Kernel on RAM. Unlike XP, the kernel of Windows and some few other core related processes are loaded on to the RAM. This increase system performance. Fun experiment: While using XP, unplug your HDD IDE or SATA cable. Your system will lock-up and freeze or get a BSOD. Do that in Vista, and the system is still usable. Even if you have Winamp internet radio playing, it will still play. If you execute any tasks (ex: open folders) it won't happen, but it will queue on a list. Once you plug back your HDD, every action teh OS was unable to do will be performed. No wait, no freeze, no BSOD.

Moreover, drivers are not so much attacked to the kernel, if one of them crashes, Vista will restart it without issues.
Vista/Server 2008 is currently the only Windows' currently on the market that takes complete advantage of your multi-core CPU. Meaning the processes are program to not run on either core1, 2, 3... or how many cores you have but stay in 1 core. It uses multiple cores. So granted in result, if you don't have a dual core CPU, Vista has a hard time, as it seams the OS was not optimized for such configuration. But if you do, the system is more responsive than XP.

If you have multiple accounts on your system, you will be glad to hear that Vista has per user registry section which include file type association, that means you can set your .avi to open with program A and the other user can have it to run with Program B even thus he is set on limited.No admin privilege required. Also, all the files and program configuration are found on a per user profile folder. All you have to do is backup the profile, and once you reinstall your OS, or want to transfer your account and program configuration to another computer you just copy and paste it. Nothing more.

Vista, fully support SATA, USB, firewire, and about everything that was released after 2001. No more floppy required to install your SATA drivers before Windows setup (else the setup won't see your hard drive, or everything will say it's corrupted, or you won't go at the max speed of your drive) In addition, Vista 32-bit was a last minute thing, most issues reported on this very website only affected Vista 32-bit and not Vista 64-bit. So have a try at Vista 64-bit. It's way more polished.

Granted that Vista doesn't have much to offer, however as mentioned millions of times from Microsoft since 2003, Longhorn/Vista is not about features, it's a bout a new core. A core that has security in mind, unlike XP which is based on NT core dated before this whole internet thing, where Microsoft was laughing at the concept that viruses and malware will exists.

Now that all he facts are properly mentioned, I think we can have a smart intelligent conversation about the REAL downside and upside of both OS.

[jason @ Oct 4th 2008 7:43PM]

The UAC on linux is much more refined...

you have to enter your password once every 15 minutes in a box that pops up when you need to change something, compared with typically doing 2 button presses per action. In linux if i want to install a program, a box pops up i give my password and the program installs. If i need to change something across the system then i am not prompted for any password since i just gave it.

I like vista, but their implementation of the UAC was quite poor.

What good does a button do if you leave your computer unlocked and some schmuck comes along and screws everything up?
it needs to prompt for a password.
Then it needs to leave you alone for a set period of time (since you gave a password, it should know that you are the administrator and will be there for around 10 minutes)
disabling the UAC to get around its annoyance is a very bad idea since it defeats the purpose of having it.

[MioTheGreat @ Oct 4th 2008 9:03PM]

>The UAC on linux is much more refined...

Actually, no it's not. Aside from the 'disable me for 15 minutes' timeout, which is a terrible, terrible 'feature' for security, they're pretty damned close. If anything, the built in filesystem and registry virtualization that Vista does out of the box for apps running under a medium IL makes it slightly more advanced.

>it needs to prompt for a password.

It can. It's very easy to configure it to do so. In fact, if you run as a Limited account, everything will work exactly the same as an Admin account, except UAC will prompt for a password, too. UAC's purpose under an Admin account isn't to prevent any actions by a user. It's to prevent automatic escalation by software.

>Then it needs to leave you alone for a set period of time (since you gave a password, it should know that you are the administrator and will be there for around 10 minutes)

What, so some piece of malicious piece of software sitting in the background running without Admin rights can suddenly spring into action and elevate itself? No thanks. I turn this feature off under Linux, too.

[liv @ Oct 5th 2008 7:38AM]

This iz The Internets... as compelling as your freaking walls of text are... I could not read the whole thing... something about short attention span :))

XP is 10 years old.... 10 YEARS OLD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! If your computer can't run vista smoothly... then why are you expecting Win7 to... Here's a newsflash: UPGRADE TO A DECENT COMPUTER! I ran Vista Ultimate on a Sempron, 1GB or RAM and a cheap GeForce 7300 and it was alright for surfing the web, Office work and some light gaming... so stop whining!

[Jamar @ Oct 5th 2008 8:33AM]

I have to take issue with the use of "Longhorn/Vista". NO. Longhorn was poised to be much better than Vista is now. I played with an alpha build and I think that they should have spent the time to make everything work instead of stripping out features here and there just to get it out of the way. Alpha versions of Longhorn weren't that bad; Vista, on the other hand, makes me want to strangle someone.

[THizzle7XU @ Oct 5th 2008 10:26AM]

Uhh, XP is about 7 years old. It came out in 2001. I think you need to do a little research before your next comment.

[CraigJ @ Oct 5th 2008 11:29AM]

Or, you could, you know, set up the root account with a strong password and log in as root or su when you want to do system level stuff. This is basically how my XP box is set up. limited user for daily used, Admin to install and config stuff. This is so that other people who sit down at my machine can't screw it up.

"Are you sure?" is not good security. Most people don't have enough info to answer the question. Many studies have shown that users just blindly start clicking whatever is needed to get the box to go away after a few timed.

What Microsoft should have done with Vista, and must do with 7 is cut the backwards compatibility cord and provide a built in XP virtual machine. You want to run old software? Run it in comparability mode. All new software development will be freed from the MFC and all that legacy crap. This will have a significant impact on performance ans security.

[happy_penguin @ Oct 5th 2008 1:03PM]

Why upgrade to Vista when my computer is running fine and doing everything I want it to do? I would take Vista on a new computer but I see no reason to upgrade my current PC to Vista. I would probably have to turn off all the eye candy and I might have issues with some of my software running in Vista.

I did upgrade to Leopard on my Mac and it's running a bit better than it did on Tiger. The thing with OSX is that if it says it runs on your machine you can be pretty sure it will run. Since Apple controls the hardware it makes things a lot easier when upgrading. The bad thing about Macs is that you can't upgrade the hardware, but the good thing about Macs is you can't upgrade the hardware. With a PC it's a bit harder to make sure everything is in order before you upgrade.

I am sure my next PC will probably be running Windows 7. I plan to skip Vista. Not hatin', just not interested. :)

[alexignatiou @ Oct 4th 2008 6:24PM]

Another proof they have understood themselves tha Vista have failed.

[fred @ Oct 4th 2008 6:36PM]

Yeah, an OS on more machines than Apple has to run OSX.

Yet Vista is a failure, yet OSX isnt.

[bob @ Oct 4th 2008 7:16PM]

me thinks fred does not know of relative terms.

[No1 @ Oct 5th 2008 4:09AM]

@fred
"Yeah, an OS on more machines than Apple has to run OSX.
Yet Vista is a failure, yet OSX isnt."

Saying that there are more computers running Vista than Mac OS X "proves" that Vista is better, is like saying:
More Fords sold than BMWs "proves" that Fords are better
or
More people voted for George Bush (twice!) than anyone else "proves" that he is the best leader for the US.

In all 3 cases, all that is really proved is that there are more people that don't recognize mediocrity & don't appreciate quality, than those who do. P.T. Barnum was referring to those who don't when he said "There's a sucker born every minute.".

[hrld161 @ Oct 4th 2008 6:36PM]

...... idc vista sucks and macs are the way to go

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Oct 4th 2008 7:17PM]

What a compelling argument. I'm switching to a Mac, now!

[Michael Scrip @ Oct 4th 2008 6:40PM]

While everyone is dogging Vista... you need to praise Microsoft for creating XP... apparently it's the greatest OS there will ever be!

Remember before Vista? Lots of people said XP sucked. Now it's on track to be in use for a decade or more.

[giuliop @ Oct 4th 2008 8:04PM]

XP is simply the only viable Windows OS; it's capable of using pretty much all the modern hardware and it's the most widespread OS.
That doesn't make it intrinsically suck less than when launched; it just appears to suck less because current hardware is (and has been for a while now) fast enough to make it run at decent speeds; because the availability of storage space make its bloatedness seem trivial, and because people got used to it and accepted its inadequacy.

Vista is worse; but as the same thing is happening you see people praise Vista because their hardware is finally capable of keeping up with its ridiculous requirements. The thought that the same exact hardware could run an OS much faster doesn't even cross their minds. People will accept anything, and they deny the discomfort as they get used to it; see them low-ranking me.

XP still sucks, but there is no better alternative in the Windows realm, so we're stuck with it. It goes without saying that history will repeat itself again with the next iteration of Windows.

[Sean @ Oct 5th 2008 8:26AM]

XP did suck when it first came out, but then they fixed it. They still haven't fixed Vista. :(
And you can't blame all of Vista's woes on old hardware and bad drivers...

[MemphisNET @ Oct 5th 2008 9:09AM]

Amen... I mean... come'on - most of us don't even drive cars that old!

[happy_penguin @ Oct 5th 2008 1:10PM]

Windows XP is a damn good OS. I still think that Windows 2000 was the best they have done to date. Windows 2000 will run on almost anything I have ever installed it on. It ran very stable and quick. Not quite so with Windows XP but XP is still damn good. It was Windows 95/98/98SE/Me that turned me off, especially Windows Me. Now THAT was a piece of shit and it took me a long time to forgive Microsoft for that hot mess.

I believe that Vista is probably a decent OS after a rocky start, but I have no need for it so I'll likely skip over it.

[Saad Rabia @ Oct 4th 2008 6:43PM]

These hardware companies have screwed Microsoft over so bad, I swear it pisses me off a lot!

Vista has been my best experince with an OS since over 14 yeas ago; The amount of great features in it get me amazed everytime I find one! I've been using it since its Beta days until now, and slowly everyone around me is getting used to it.

But the hardware companies have been so lazy writing new drivers for Vista that it really really did hurt Microsoft's reputation. I have a complete confidence that Vista is absoultly fantastic, I mean whenever I got the right drivers everything was like a smooth ride. These BSOD's are only prove that those drivers' manufactors are simple a bunch of retards that are too lazy to backup their old products! It's like a plan they have: "Let's make people buy new hardware instead of us supporting their old hardware then make them blame it on Microsoft".

I will put it simple: Vista made me love computers even much more than before. I depened on it on my video on audio freelance productions, and I completly support Microsoft by sending them my feedback on new ideas or bugs (if there are any).

I'm not saying that some other company is bad or good, I'm simply talking about my honest-to-god true and straight experiance with my 4-years old machine and Vista 32bit.

[John @ Oct 4th 2008 8:13PM]

I guess that could be partially attributed to Microsoft requiring all drivers be digitally signed now, costing money, and the poor public perception of Vista has these companies being very lazy and cheap, unwilling to get their drivers signed because they dont think there is a demand.

[bureX @ Oct 4th 2008 8:46PM]

@John:
FYI: You can install your driver whether it's signed or not, even on 64bit Vista...

[Sean @ Oct 5th 2008 8:26AM]

I'd like to agree with you, but you can't blame all of Vista's woes on bad hardware drivers.
It seems to "like" certain configurations of hardware and not like others and has little to do with how old the hardware is.
Anyone can say that "Vista rocks!" or "Vista sucks!" based on their experience with their one or two computers, but we have tried Vista on over 30 machines since it was released (some old and some new, some low-end and some high-end, some name-brand and some custom built) all met Vista supposed compatibility requirements, but it only worked reliably on 4 of them.
So I can say with slightly less anecdotal experience that Vista truly does suck.

[Levi @ Dec 6th 2008 7:49PM]

Ok I have both xp pro (sp3) and vista 64bit (sp1) installed on my system. I haven't used xp in several months now and that was only to use a program that doesn't work on vista yet. After using vista on a regular basis xp just seems slow and inefficient to use, I also have a performance increase in most programs I use (they're available in 64 bit) so why would I want to 'upgrade' to xp.

Anybody who just gives it a couple of days use will not see any benefit as Vista is still learning your habits, the underlying basis of the os is different to xp and this takes a little bit of getting used to especially if you're not clued up with everything before hand.

Now I admit that vista could do with a bit of a nip and tuck around the edges, it is a tad bloated and 64bit codec support could be better (still end up using the 32bit player) but I wouldn't go out of my way to uninstall it because of them. The biggest nuisance for most is the default defrag/spyware settings and UAC which is easily sorted by using Tweak UAC.

Hopefully Windows 7 will be vista after the nip and tuck, and if I'm really lucky only in 64bit flavours.

However if people still wish to use xp then thats their choice, I'm not going to stop them.