I think it is Microsoft's own mistake that they still are giving extensions on XP license and support.
I personally think that people around the globe are ready to stick with XP forever if Microsoft gave them chances. Companies want cheap stuff, stuff that they already know how to run in less than a second. If Microsoft is serious about companies adopting Vista or 7, they should either offer it for really cheap, or just cut support on XP immediately.
Vista is amazing, but the extreme bad to No support ruined its chances for success, and Windows 7 can fall right behind Vista if things stay the same.
If I had a company I would deploy Vista and abuse every nice feature in it, but I would not do it if I have a better deal for XP.
The problem of Vista is that all new software still works on XP. Including Microsoft's own goodies like .NET Framework 3.5, Visual Studio, MS Office 2007, et. al. So there is no need for companies to switch, since everything "just works".
If MS cuts support for new apps on XP then it will be another story. Then all geek community will raise and curse Microsoft into oblivion. So the problem is not that Vista is bad, the problem is that XP is too good and compatible.
New computers will slowly push Vista and W7 onto consumers and businesses, but XP will stay there until the last piece of pre-2007 hardware dies. Which will be another 10 years easily. Or at least until hard economic times are over.
Personally I like Vista and W7, but I am not a business with a burden of hundreds of old workstations and no money to upgrade.
BTW, looks like even the slowest companies like IBM had upgraded their apps to be Vista compatible. So there is no reason to hold to XP except for money issues.
So you support the idea the Microsoft can FORCE millions of companies (and possibly competitors) into upgrading to a more expensive system simply by shutting off all support?
Andir3.0, you know what is the real problem about this "cheaper" issue that you are talking about?
It creates an endless loop of downfall.
Whenever Vista gets cheaper XP will also get cheaper than Vista, basically XP will always be cheaper, until when? It is endless. Whenever Vista gets faster, XP will also get faster than Vista, so XP will always be faster. Endless.
Do you want to use a 1996 NOKIA phone forever just because it is more stable than the new ones? Do you want to watch analog TV forever just because it is free and easier to setup?
No and No, people must advance. You will buy a new phone although it has less battery time because you adapt to new technology, and you buy an HD tv with new cables because you want to take advantage of the new era of video broadcast.
Stability in technology does not come from the company alone, it comes from people using it and feedbacks. Vista introduces a lot of new technology advancements where if used right could speed up our work flow, but if companies focus on creating hardware or software to run on old OS's we will not see any good use of these new technologies.
Shutting off support on XP is like Dad holding candy from his kids; it seems mean, but it is for the a better and healthier future.
So I say Microsoft should end the support on XP and ask people to upgrade as soon as possible.
1. I should be able to use that 1996 Nokia phone if it still works. That's my choice. 2. I should also be able to use analog TV if I wanted to. Unfortunately, our dip shit country is turning socialist. Yes, I like HD... but I should NOT be forced to upgrade to it. Period. 3. You think of Microsoft as a father? Weird.
1. Many (if not all) 1996 phones do not work now due to network upgrades, so you are forced to adapt and buy a new one, no choice, of course this is all for the good of humanity.
2. Thank you for pointing that honestly.
3. My example is just to point out the situation of taking of something from you, not to say that Microsoft is our lord or father!
No, you are essentially stating the you think Microsoft knows better than you do. You have given up your free will and choice to a company in the guise of "betterment of humanity" or some other illogical conclusion.
The point I'm making: If my grandmother doesn't want to go out and spend money on a new TV receiver, she shouldn't have to. Just like HD Radio, they offer both broadcasts. HD Radio has to sell itself in quality and tune-ability. If people find value in such a transition... they will buy it. Otherwise you are not providing enough incentive (and improvement of their experience) to do so. If Microsoft were serious about "the betterment of humanity" they would provide enough of a selling point or a lower cost to entice people to their new OS. So far, people haven't seen that and don't want to spend the money.
There is absolutely no reason for forcing people to upgrade operating systems. Period. In fact, I find it disturbing that Microsoft has the power to decide that upgrade timespan. They should be forced to support all their operating systems until a majority (>90%) of their customer base upgrades. Their business should be driven by customer needs, not their own (or yours.)
Microsoft stopped supporting Windows 3.1, what are you going to do now? Apple forces you to buy their own OS inside their machines, what are you going to do? You web hosting company upgraded into a new system, what are going to do? You network doesn't support phones from 1996, what will you do to them? In order to sign in to Xbox Live you must upgrade your system to the new look, what will you do?
Hundreds and hundreds of things that upgrade around you without giving you a choice. People complain, then adapt. It is that simple.
Microsoft isn't better than us, but we are also not better than them.
People can't see change until they see it, If people are happy with XP, a better version for them would seem weired and unnecessary.
It's companies' duty to upgrade people to better solutions.
The majority will never upgrade, unless they are forced, then feedback pops in and better products emerge.
Just like you have a choice to use older hardware/software/stuff, companies have the choice to stop supporting it. Don't just assume Microsoft does it. Lots of new Mac software only works on OSX with Intel Mac's. I'm sure there is a point where Linux draws the line on hardware it supports. New versions of Firefox don't run on anything pre-2000. Is this a bad thing? No. Supporting older hardware/software would make operating system bloated pieces of garbage. At the very least, appreciate that Microsoft has been kind enough to make a lot of its products run on older OS's, even if it hurts their bottom line. But there comes a point at which they have to cut you off and make you upgrade, as they are a buissness, not Linux.
Microsoft isn't holding a gun to your head to upgrade. You just can't get used to the thought of trying something new and unfamiliar. Whatever happened to your sense of adventure?
microsoft isnt introduving xp for the betterment of humanity , rather ms has gotten used to putting a new os out every couple of years to a) improve the os/add new needed technology and b) make a shitload of money.
now however we are at a stage where xp is pretty damn good at what it does and the new os isnt really adding anything at all but microsoft is used to making all that extra revenue every few years and so wants us to move to vista.
There's a difference in dropping support for a minor part of your customer base and dropping support for a major part to force them into upgrading.
If there are 5 people using Windows 98... sure, drop it. There's no point. If there's 30-50% of your customer base still using XP... you have no right to drop support.
This has nothing to do with my preferences. (Well, maybe a little, but I mainly use Debian at home and XP at work)
And for the record... Linux doesn't drop support for old hardware until the last person using it does...
Exactly. If Microsoft was really concerned about providing a better experience for their users... they should be offering a service pack for XP that includes those "helpful" features.
sinjinn, XP is part of the humanity evolution, just like everything new is.
Lol, so how about we wait until the last person stops using XP. Hahahaha. The world is evolving faster and faster everyday around us, and you want Microsoft to support XP maybe until sometime around 2015! Because trust me, if people are given the choice to keep it, they will keep using it forever, or until hardware and software companies drop supporting it, and this is my point.
If they drop support from the 50% using XP, they will eventually shift to Vista, no other options; you can still use XP, but no support, simple and clear. As Eli said "Supporting older hardware/software would make operating system bloated pieces of garbage."
This is what is making Apple succeed, and this alone what will make Windows 7 succeed, otherwise it is Vista all over again: People still using XP, scared to shift to new windows explorer; people don't buy 7 because it is more expansive than XP; people start complaining about this alien called Windows 7, no feedback, no driver support and the next thing we know, people still don't use built in biometric devices or geo-locating services or multi-touch technology, because XP doesn't have it built in... again and again and again.
By your logic, why should Apple force people to upgrade their iPhones to a new version with copy and paste although all old iPhone users never used it? Why should Microsoft even bother work on Vista or even Windows 7, keep supporting XP and fixing it forever, or why even add new features, let us all stop at one point and just put fixes and patches forever; no need for new technology at all.
The matter of the fact stays clear, you, wither you like it or not, will be forced to upgrade without having a choice to many new stuff in this world, everybody does it, and Microsoft should start doing it.
You are confusing upgrades with forced removal of features... Vista/Win7 forcefully removes features. I've posted these features all over the place. The options you just spouted out are ALL capable under XP. You could expand XP to include every single option. If Microsoft could actually write a decent OS, they could create an installer that only installed and/or used what people actually wanted and remove the bloat of those features that they don't want. Supporting older hardware done properly DOES NOT BLOAT. If I install Windows on my Tablet PC, include drivers for the Wacom interface... no Wacom interface? Don't put that driver on it.. NO BLOAT! OMG! I just solved what you think is Microsoft's biggest problem.
By my logic, upgrades are fine and good. By my logic, forced feature removal for "the sake of forced human advancement" is not. You said it yourself. Choice. Microsoft DOES NOT OFFER CHOICE. Only ultimatums.
You are trying to make it sound like I don't support upgrading at all. You are wrong. What I don't support is forcing the consumer to spend more money because you feel as though they should. I said it before. Make the feature marketable. You seem to not understand this. People buy new cars because they are new and interesting. They buy Sports cars because they are fun. They offer them something better than the van that does all their work now. Microsoft needs a sports car with GPS navigation, smoother ride, more room, better options... what they are giving you is a mini-van. Sure, it's faster... but they are taking out what made your old van usable. This new van doesn't do as much as the old one did, and you are here trying to sell that?
It's really as simple as: You think that an option YOU like should be forced upon everyone else. That's it. You think you're method is the ONLY valid one.
Wow, I've heard a *lot* of adjectives used to describe Vista, by users and tech journalists/reviewers alike, but I must say "amazing" has not been one of them.
@Andir3.0: I need to correct one statement which is false.
And for the record... Linux doesn't drop support for old hardware until the last person using it does...
Linux is a product, not a company, it doesn't support anyone. Contributors are supporting the hardware. And that support is dropped the moment the last supporting contributor stops support it, not the last person using it. More than 99% of all computer users have no idea how to update or fix a device driver to maintain support for their device. And some companies do not release open-source versions of their hardware drivers, meaning that hardware support is dropped from Linux.
Microsoft has every right in the world to drop support for XP. Market share is not reason why a company should be prohibited. Microsoft has every right to stop making and selling operating systems. You might disagree with their tactics if they did stop supporting XP, and it might not make good business sense... But it's their right to do. They're a free enterprise, making a product which has already passed it's documented support lifecycle. They increase the support life of the product for business reasons, not by requirement.
In an open source world... the last person using it is the last maintainer. If they are not inquisitive enough to know how to edit the source and can't find someone that does... then that's not the fault of Linux. There is no such thing as "dropping support" in Linux until every last user stops using it.
saad , you say "sinjinn, XP is part of the humanity evolution, just like everything new is"
evolution is based upon natural selection, no one is selecting vista , it is slower , cumbersome , badly designed piece of software .. humanity will naturally select a better os when it is available and offers them GENUINE reason to change , not a forced change.
i think you will find most people will stick to xp like everyone i know who has downgraded, they have evolved ...from vista to xp.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I think it is Microsoft's own mistake that they still are giving extensions on XP license and support.
I personally think that people around the globe are ready to stick with XP forever if Microsoft gave them chances. Companies want cheap stuff, stuff that they already know how to run in less than a second. If Microsoft is serious about companies adopting Vista or 7, they should either offer it for really cheap, or just cut support on XP immediately.
Vista is amazing, but the extreme bad to No support ruined its chances for success, and Windows 7 can fall right behind Vista if things stay the same.
If I had a company I would deploy Vista and abuse every nice feature in it, but I would not do it if I have a better deal for XP.
Microsoft, it's your job, not anyone else's.
I completely agree!
The problem of Vista is that all new software still works on XP. Including Microsoft's own goodies like .NET Framework 3.5, Visual Studio, MS Office 2007, et. al. So there is no need for companies to switch, since everything "just works".
If MS cuts support for new apps on XP then it will be another story. Then all geek community will raise and curse Microsoft into oblivion. So the problem is not that Vista is bad, the problem is that XP is too good and compatible.
New computers will slowly push Vista and W7 onto consumers and businesses, but XP will stay there until the last piece of pre-2007 hardware dies. Which will be another 10 years easily. Or at least until hard economic times are over.
Personally I like Vista and W7, but I am not a business with a burden of hundreds of old workstations and no money to upgrade.
BTW, looks like even the slowest companies like IBM had upgraded their apps to be Vista compatible. So there is no reason to hold to XP except for money issues.
So you support the idea the Microsoft can FORCE millions of companies (and possibly competitors) into upgrading to a more expensive system simply by shutting off all support?
Wow.
Andir3.0, you know what is the real problem about this "cheaper" issue that you are talking about?
It creates an endless loop of downfall.
Whenever Vista gets cheaper XP will also get cheaper than Vista, basically XP will always be cheaper, until when? It is endless.
Whenever Vista gets faster, XP will also get faster than Vista, so XP will always be faster. Endless.
Do you want to use a 1996 NOKIA phone forever just because it is more stable than the new ones?
Do you want to watch analog TV forever just because it is free and easier to setup?
No and No, people must advance. You will buy a new phone although it has less battery time because you adapt to new technology, and you buy an HD tv with new cables because you want to take advantage of the new era of video broadcast.
Stability in technology does not come from the company alone, it comes from people using it and feedbacks. Vista introduces a lot of new technology advancements where if used right could speed up our work flow, but if companies focus on creating hardware or software to run on old OS's we will not see any good use of these new technologies.
Shutting off support on XP is like Dad holding candy from his kids; it seems mean, but it is for the a better and healthier future.
So I say Microsoft should end the support on XP and ask people to upgrade as soon as possible.
1. I should be able to use that 1996 Nokia phone if it still works. That's my choice.
2. I should also be able to use analog TV if I wanted to. Unfortunately, our dip shit country is turning socialist. Yes, I like HD... but I should NOT be forced to upgrade to it. Period.
3. You think of Microsoft as a father? Weird.
Andir3.0, dear, my point still stands solid.
1. Many (if not all) 1996 phones do not work now due to network upgrades, so you are forced to adapt and buy a new one, no choice, of course this is all for the good of humanity.
2. Thank you for pointing that honestly.
3. My example is just to point out the situation of taking of something from you, not to say that Microsoft is our lord or father!
You see what I mean?
No, you are essentially stating the you think Microsoft knows better than you do. You have given up your free will and choice to a company in the guise of "betterment of humanity" or some other illogical conclusion.
The point I'm making: If my grandmother doesn't want to go out and spend money on a new TV receiver, she shouldn't have to. Just like HD Radio, they offer both broadcasts. HD Radio has to sell itself in quality and tune-ability. If people find value in such a transition... they will buy it. Otherwise you are not providing enough incentive (and improvement of their experience) to do so. If Microsoft were serious about "the betterment of humanity" they would provide enough of a selling point or a lower cost to entice people to their new OS. So far, people haven't seen that and don't want to spend the money.
There is absolutely no reason for forcing people to upgrade operating systems. Period. In fact, I find it disturbing that Microsoft has the power to decide that upgrade timespan. They should be forced to support all their operating systems until a majority (>90%) of their customer base upgrades. Their business should be driven by customer needs, not their own (or yours.)
Andir3.0,
Microsoft stopped supporting Windows 3.1, what are you going to do now?
Apple forces you to buy their own OS inside their machines, what are you going to do?
You web hosting company upgraded into a new system, what are going to do?
You network doesn't support phones from 1996, what will you do to them?
In order to sign in to Xbox Live you must upgrade your system to the new look, what will you do?
Hundreds and hundreds of things that upgrade around you without giving you a choice. People complain, then adapt. It is that simple.
Microsoft isn't better than us, but we are also not better than them.
People can't see change until they see it, If people are happy with XP, a better version for them would seem weired and unnecessary.
It's companies' duty to upgrade people to better solutions.
The majority will never upgrade, unless they are forced, then feedback pops in and better products emerge.
@Andir 3.0
Just like you have a choice to use older hardware/software/stuff, companies have the choice to stop supporting it. Don't just assume Microsoft does it. Lots of new Mac software only works on OSX with Intel Mac's. I'm sure there is a point where Linux draws the line on hardware it supports. New versions of Firefox don't run on anything pre-2000. Is this a bad thing? No. Supporting older hardware/software would make operating system bloated pieces of garbage. At the very least, appreciate that Microsoft has been kind enough to make a lot of its products run on older OS's, even if it hurts their bottom line. But there comes a point at which they have to cut you off and make you upgrade, as they are a buissness, not Linux.
Microsoft isn't holding a gun to your head to upgrade. You just can't get used to the thought of trying something new and unfamiliar. Whatever happened to your sense of adventure?
Don't bother arguing with Andir, he trolls all Microsoft related articles.
saad , i have to disagree.
microsoft isnt introduving xp for the betterment of humanity , rather ms has gotten used to putting a new os out every couple of years to a) improve the os/add new needed technology and b) make a shitload of money.
now however we are at a stage where xp is pretty damn good at what it does and the new os isnt really adding anything at all but microsoft is used to making all that extra revenue every few years and so wants us to move to vista.
There's a difference in dropping support for a minor part of your customer base and dropping support for a major part to force them into upgrading.
If there are 5 people using Windows 98... sure, drop it. There's no point. If there's 30-50% of your customer base still using XP... you have no right to drop support.
This has nothing to do with my preferences. (Well, maybe a little, but I mainly use Debian at home and XP at work)
And for the record... Linux doesn't drop support for old hardware until the last person using it does...
@sinjinn:
Exactly. If Microsoft was really concerned about providing a better experience for their users... they should be offering a service pack for XP that includes those "helpful" features.
sinjinn, XP is part of the humanity evolution, just like everything new is.
Lol, so how about we wait until the last person stops using XP. Hahahaha. The world is evolving faster and faster everyday around us, and you want Microsoft to support XP maybe until sometime around 2015! Because trust me, if people are given the choice to keep it, they will keep using it forever, or until hardware and software companies drop supporting it, and this is my point.
If they drop support from the 50% using XP, they will eventually shift to Vista, no other options; you can still use XP, but no support, simple and clear. As Eli said "Supporting older hardware/software would make operating system bloated pieces of garbage."
This is what is making Apple succeed, and this alone what will make Windows 7 succeed, otherwise it is Vista all over again: People still using XP, scared to shift to new windows explorer; people don't buy 7 because it is more expansive than XP; people start complaining about this alien called Windows 7, no feedback, no driver support and the next thing we know, people still don't use built in biometric devices or geo-locating services or multi-touch technology, because XP doesn't have it built in... again and again and again.
By your logic, why should Apple force people to upgrade their iPhones to a new version with copy and paste although all old iPhone users never used it? Why should Microsoft even bother work on Vista or even Windows 7, keep supporting XP and fixing it forever, or why even add new features, let us all stop at one point and just put fixes and patches forever; no need for new technology at all.
The matter of the fact stays clear, you, wither you like it or not, will be forced to upgrade without having a choice to many new stuff in this world, everybody does it, and Microsoft should start doing it.
Huh.
You are confusing upgrades with forced removal of features... Vista/Win7 forcefully removes features. I've posted these features all over the place. The options you just spouted out are ALL capable under XP. You could expand XP to include every single option. If Microsoft could actually write a decent OS, they could create an installer that only installed and/or used what people actually wanted and remove the bloat of those features that they don't want. Supporting older hardware done properly DOES NOT BLOAT. If I install Windows on my Tablet PC, include drivers for the Wacom interface... no Wacom interface? Don't put that driver on it.. NO BLOAT! OMG! I just solved what you think is Microsoft's biggest problem.
By my logic, upgrades are fine and good. By my logic, forced feature removal for "the sake of forced human advancement" is not. You said it yourself. Choice. Microsoft DOES NOT OFFER CHOICE. Only ultimatums.
You are trying to make it sound like I don't support upgrading at all. You are wrong. What I don't support is forcing the consumer to spend more money because you feel as though they should. I said it before. Make the feature marketable. You seem to not understand this. People buy new cars because they are new and interesting. They buy Sports cars because they are fun. They offer them something better than the van that does all their work now. Microsoft needs a sports car with GPS navigation, smoother ride, more room, better options... what they are giving you is a mini-van. Sure, it's faster... but they are taking out what made your old van usable. This new van doesn't do as much as the old one did, and you are here trying to sell that?
It's really as simple as: You think that an option YOU like should be forced upon everyone else. That's it. You think you're method is the ONLY valid one.
"Vista is amazing" - Saad Rabia
Wow, I've heard a *lot* of adjectives used to describe Vista, by users and tech journalists/reviewers alike, but I must say "amazing" has not been one of them.
You live in a strange universe, Mr. Rabia.
"the problem is that XP is too good and compatible."
And how is that a problem?
Sheesh, people say things and don't even realise what they're saying.
@Andir3.0: I need to correct one statement which is false.
And for the record... Linux doesn't drop support for old hardware until the last person using it does...
Linux is a product, not a company, it doesn't support anyone. Contributors are supporting the hardware. And that support is dropped the moment the last supporting contributor stops support it, not the last person using it. More than 99% of all computer users have no idea how to update or fix a device driver to maintain support for their device. And some companies do not release open-source versions of their hardware drivers, meaning that hardware support is dropped from Linux.
Microsoft has every right in the world to drop support for XP. Market share is not reason why a company should be prohibited. Microsoft has every right to stop making and selling operating systems. You might disagree with their tactics if they did stop supporting XP, and it might not make good business sense... But it's their right to do. They're a free enterprise, making a product which has already passed it's documented support lifecycle. They increase the support life of the product for business reasons, not by requirement.
In an open source world... the last person using it is the last maintainer. If they are not inquisitive enough to know how to edit the source and can't find someone that does... then that's not the fault of Linux. There is no such thing as "dropping support" in Linux until every last user stops using it.
saad , you say "sinjinn, XP is part of the humanity evolution, just like everything new is"
evolution is based upon natural selection, no one is selecting vista , it is slower , cumbersome , badly designed piece of software .. humanity will naturally select a better os when it is available and offers them GENUINE reason to change , not a forced change.
i think you will find most people will stick to xp like everyone i know who has downgraded, they have evolved ...from vista to xp.