| 7:58 am on Apr 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Most people just use whatever came with their machine until it needs to be replaced. A friend of mine only stopped using Win98 last year when her PC finally gave out.
Having said that I made a point of going to an independent shop for my current laptop as they were still supplying them with XP pre-loaded when the chains had just switched to selling everything with Vista.
| 11:15 am on Apr 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Having tested Windows 7 beta (albeit not extensively) my instinct is that it will not suffer anything like the criticism that Vista has. It is definitely quicker in some areas and, apart from the visual style (which is almost identical to Vista at this point) feels much more like XP.
The issue of support is minor for most people. Those that have bought OEM copies of XP have to go through their supplier anyway. As for big business, their IT departments should know how to drive XP by now, and if they have a question they should be able to find answers online or figure out a solution themselves.
| 3:05 pm on Apr 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm with Liny, I like XP and don't want to upgrade for the sake of upgrading. Vista didn't provide me with any vastly superior improvements to motivate me either. Sorry MS
| 8:33 pm on Apr 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've got Windows 7 running on a machine and I don't see a whole lot of difference from Vista. From a layman user's point of view, they won't really see much at all. Barely anything is different in the UI. Once XP dies, I'm going Mac.
| 9:57 pm on Apr 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm still using Win98SE on a PC upstairs - only because there are no drivers for the recording studio sound card thing I have.
| 1:09 am on Apr 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm still running 2000 on a lot of machines - no worries.
Bugs should be out of an operating system after a few years, anyway...nothing but security patches after that point, so everyone is still covered.
| 2:12 am on Apr 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I maintain one each of DOS 5, Win95, Win98, and NT4 (server) as a subnet to my home office network...isolated from the web so I don't have to worry about SOME security problems. Each runs legacy apps or hardware I'm not willing to give up or try to replicate with newer systems/hardware...thus saving me THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. I run XP pro on three of the netside systems and two running XP Pro64. Recently set up a sidenet Linux box with apache for development purposes. At this stage of the game xp remains the workhorse and...after sp3 upgrades...is very secure/stable. It will be with me for quite a while yet. As a one man shop I'm no great shakes as regards other biz...but what I've got would be EXPENSIVE to migrate to WIN7. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. BUT, and this is the way it SHOULD BE, if I have to replace a machine it will be with what's new.
| 2:30 pm on Apr 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think MS should do the splits.
By that I mean, that MS should do two OS builds for two different types of PC users, namely the ones that work, and the ones that don't.
Sure, Vista is "all of that" when it comes to anything you'll want to do, and in most respects, this is fine. But why bother having "all" of the childlike media/gaming quirks written into a system that will only be used for "work"? and vise versa?
Though most of our operating has been shifted to Linux over the past few years, we'll still maintain a version or two of the XP, until third party's can catch up on the writes for Linux.
Still, over the years, we've often found ourselves turning off, or just outright eliminating certain OS features that came with the Windows OS simply because they weren't needed/desired. A lighter, more efficient, stable and much faster OS was the end result for us ... we always ended up with a more "linux like" system.
I think MS should pull their heads out and understand the difference between those who play and those who pay.
One size fits all used to work, way back in the stone aged 90's ... but the PC users of today have evolved and become much more refined in their usage of the OS.
Diversity can win the day. Separating the OS itself into two different camps can, on the Home PC front, be the way to go for Microsoft in the future ... much like how Windows Server is separate from the Home PC, in many respects.
There are always going to be those who play, and those who pay ... There's a big difference between "tools & toys", and it might serve MS well to realise this and act upon it accordingly.
| 5:23 am on Apr 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I think MS should do the splits. |
Vista came in about 8 different versions [webmasterworld.com] that did exactly that. The problem was that with so many version it became confusing which one to pick. Windows 7 is said to be limiting that number.
| 5:39 am on Apr 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It's late, and I might be misremembering, but I think the roll out for Win7 will be six variations. Perhaps a tad more than we need but what the hey, price points for each. Like Red Widgets, Little Red Widgets, Really Tiny Red Widgets, Red Widgets with Rash, and Green Widgets---and all that duplicate content we're all so worried about (without any benefit).
This marketing style also works for shoe stores that fill closets across the globe. :)
If it were me I'd offer: "Just Enough" and "More Than You Need" with a 50% price differential. For the 95% who just "want it" (until the 40% of the 95% discover they really NEED it) the simples get systems and on line quick. For the 5% who do the work they get the tools they need to get'er done.
Dreamland, I know, but we all should dream from time to time. :)
| 6:09 am on Apr 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I don't see it mentioned in this thread but remember that security fixes for XP will still be provided for five more years for free.
Considering they don't have any other OS that will run on netbooks, until the CPU power doubles, XP will still be around.
I'm using Win2k for 10 years after they stopped official support so that means XP will probably around until 2020 via third party service packs at this rate.
| 11:29 am on Apr 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
See my earlier... still running DOS 5, Win95, Win98, NT4 server, and all the later versions. Many years after support ceased. It keeps working, even after Y2K (remember that scare?)
But there is an end to product life. This is something we accept and work around, kicking a screaming as we are dragged into the next version (some five to ten years later).
| 4:53 pm on Apr 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Vista came in about 8 different versions that did exactly that. |
Sure they did, but not quite as "exactly as that". Every release beyond the very basic release contained a good assortment of toys and eye candy.
Windows needs to build beyond just cpu capability and price ... They need to begin building for us.
Pretties and fancy resource hog graphics are fine for those attempting to impress their mates with how nice their panel looks ... It's been said that "looks are 90% of the sale", and this is quite true ... But looks don't do much for those of us that depend on and use these cpu's for a living.
Fancy packages won't carry the day quite like a decent OS will I'm afraid.
| 7:08 pm on Apr 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
May be Windows 7 will be successfully than Windows Vista. I will use XP until Microsoft did not issue a Windows 7 SP1.
| 7:17 am on May 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
There's nothing in Vista that isn't in XP, aside from garbage to slow you down even more. I already disable all the visual effects on XP. Fading stuff, why would you want to watch your window popping up? I want whatever I click on to popup right asap, I don't want a half second delay to watch it popping up.
I'm a Linux user, but if I have to use Windows, only XP is acceptable.
Anyways, why does anyone care about this news? The only important updates are security updates, which will be supported until 2014. XP was released 2001, how much longer did you expect them to spend money working on security updates?
As for the upgrade issue, upgrading rather than backing up and doing a clean install really isn't smart (for any OS). It can cause so many issues. Windows Seven is not an updated version of XP, it's an entirely new Operating System that should require a clean install. I understand from the average computer user's point of view, it would be easiest for them to upgrade, but that is to be understood that you can't upgrade a 2001 OS to a 2010 OS.
I never upgrade any OS, always backup and clean install. You have to backup anyways, since there is always a risk that the upgrade will fail.
| 12:10 pm on May 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I'm on windows 7 right now. Got a free copy from a relative who signed up for the Beta. |
Works great most of the time. Noting really special to write home Ma' about.
Crashes every now and then. Since I'm on a Dell laptop, the mouse touchpad acts screwy every now and then and stops working.
LOL. Feel that MS pride!
No thanks. I will stick to XP until they take it from my cold dead hands.
| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 46 ( 1  ) |