Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: bill
Microsoft is extending by five months the deadline to buy Windows XP at retail or with a new PC.
The move comes in response to feedback from customers — particularly small businesses — that want more time with the old system before buying its replacement, Windows Vista.
The company had planned to cut off XP sales through the retail and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) channels on Jan. 30, 2008, one year after the launch of Vista. The deadline, extended in an announcement Thursday, is now June 30, 2008.
Microsoft Extends XP Purchase Deadline to 30 June 2008 [seattletimes.nwsource.com]
Good news! There is no way I will buy a computer with an OS less than 18 months old. If others want to volunteer to be Mr Gate's vivisection guinea pigs thats fine.
I wont buy either. Infact I am having tough time that I am getting vista instead of xp pro with dell. Going back to xp pro is still costing more.
I was on a flight last week with a Microsoft Vista PR person. We got to talking and I mentioned I stuck with XP on my latest laptop purchase... She of course was a Vista fanatic. I told her maybe by the time I get my next computer I'll be ready to upgrade to Vista...
She said they'll be on to Windows 7.0 by then... How many votes say Microsoft scraps Vista and starts all over (again) for this "Windows 7.0".... ;-)
Anyway... it appeared we were at odds about the topic... so I politely pulled out my iPod shuffle... and she lugged out her Zune... and we went our separate ways...
so I politely pulled out my iPod shuffle... and she lugged out her Zune... and we went our separate ways...
What is the zune a friggen laptop hard drive with some extra electronics and a screen encapsulating it? No offense Microsoft but it's ancient technology.
It's funny how all of us instinctively shunned Vista like the plague. It would be sad for microsoft if Vista turned out to be the next ME (It would be horrible for Microsoft, Didn't they build Vista for 6 years or so?) My goodness Microsoft get it together already, stop lumbering around like a geriatric monolithic beast.
I do like the idea of getting back to the old windows naming convention involving the word "windows" followed by a number. If/when I finally get forced to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7.0 I'll format it and reinstall XP within 30 seconds if they haven't made it so I can arrange windows around on the taskbar instead of being forced to have them in the order they were opened.
The only one you're hurting by not embracing new technology is yourself. Don't be scared little bunnies.
As for Office 2007, that took a lot of balls (and arrogance) from Microsoft. To completely redesign the UI is a bold step. I'm sure I'm in the minority who actually likes it. After taking some time to explore and use it, I have come to believe it is a big improvement. It is much faster and easier to use. I'm actually capable of change though. Most people are resistant to it, as illustrated by the earlier posts. Give it some time, you'll be glad you did.
I'm sure you're all going to hate me now as well, but I just wanted to add a different opinion. Flame on.
The only thing wrong with Vista is that there is no *need* to upgrade from XP and it is not for weaker machines.
Just because you have not experienced any problems, that does not mean there are none.
I have experienced problems and, as a programmer, have had to implement some pretty imaginative fixes. For instance, the dimensions of fixed-size windows are reported incorrectly if aero is enabled so for purposes of accurate positioning, I had to make all such windows resizable and then override message handlers so that they couldn't be resized. On a scale of 1 to 10, how poor was MS testing of Vista would you say? It took me only a few minutes to discover that bug but a lot longer to fully implement the workaround.
Btw, how much space does Vista need to just install?
Face it, Vista is DOS 4.0 and people are going to keep using 3.3
until 5.0 comes around with many fixes and real improvements.
Besides, I'm upgrade weary.
[edited by: amznVibe at 4:12 am (utc) on Oct. 2, 2007]
It has puzzled to me for some time that Apple does not release OS onto the wider PC market. I guess they calculate that loosing control of Mac hardware would be a bad move - can't say I agree with that decision. Just look at Microsoft and IBM in the 80s - IBM nearly went bust making hardware and MS got huge making software. Even now, IBM has just sold off a large part of its hardware division to Lenovo (China).
Altough hardly possible (I would think?), it would be interesting to have Mac OS for PCs.
Uhmmm..they use the same hardware and Mac is a GUI sitting on top of Linux/Unix. There would be no problems at all running Mac OS on a PC except it checks the bios/chipset I believe. They could easily change it as the new Macs hardware is the same as PC's. My opinion is they will not as Mac buyers would soon figure out they are paying big $$ for the OS or seriously overpaying for the hardware.
[edited by: The_Contractor at 11:26 am (utc) on Oct. 4, 2007]
After all, 10 minutes of playing with it and I was finally convinced that it was time to upgrade to Linux... thank God for Suse!
Heck, and now that I have upgrade again to 10.3 I am even happier that I upgraded. I must say... Beryl/Compiz Fusion makes Aero look more than slightly antiquated, and that was the one feature everyone said was so nifty about Vista.
I absolutely love Vista.
After all, 10 minutes of playing with it and I was finally convinced that it was time to upgrade to Linux.
I think the biggest favor most webmasters could do for themselves is to give Linux desktop a go.
Most websites are hosted on Linux. When you run Linux on your desktop, you are forced to learn Linux in greater depth. You can integrate your desktop machine into remote management and maintainence tasks - without buying or downloading any additional software - in ways that Windows users only dream of.
Hey, first guess who was in charge of DOS 4.0 development? IBM, yes IBM.
And yes, Microsoft made all the development on D0S 3.3 and MSDOS 5.0. Guess why Bill Gates wrote in 1991 the following:
"If we do succeed, then we will be done forever with the poor code, poor design, poor process, and other overhead that doing our best to do what IBM has led us to (for the past five years)."*
Second, "I'm still flying along on Win2k. I love that it fits on half a gig instead of needed a full gig like XP All of them are based on the same Win32 core, nothing but visual has changed. Btw, how much space does Vista need to just install? "
If you don't have the system resources (CPU, RAM, HD space), then stick with Windows 2000 or XP. It's that simple.
Let the people who do have full system resources enjoy Microsoft Windows Vista to the fullest.
Finally, Linux users, Mac users, IBM employees and/or sellers of IBM services should wake up to the fact Microsoft has 3 kick-as (omitted one 's' to maintain good PR) operating systems to keep the world running on Windows. Yes, you can run Microsoft Windows adequately starting with a Pentium 133 MHz using Windows 2000.
Do you guys have a similar strategy? If not, then start working and stop whining!
* See [groups.google.com...]
"The ideal is to come out with new versions of DOS that are not only reliable but are 'smaller', 'faster', 'sexier' and 'more powerful'. In order to do this we need to rewrite some of the existing code. Undoing IBM's DOS 4 work is a step in the right direction but neither IBM nor the market place will accept something that is simply that.
"The core code in DOS..."
To read the rest, look for Plaintiff's Exhibit 184 in the case Comes v. Microsoft.
Pretty interesting memo...
Look for Plaintiff's Exhibit 9020 in the case Comes v. Microsoft. The document is titled "OS/2 Assessment - Phase II" by Edwin R. Lassettre and Darryl Rubin. It's dated March 1990.
It includes a chart on page 10 that evaluates Microsoft's and IBM's code contributions in OS/2. The chart looks like as follows:
Microsoft [Code] [Efficiency] [Logic Algo/Data]
Virtual Memory OK OK OK
Semaphores OK OK OK
IFS OK OK OK
GRE BitBit Great OK+ Great
GRE Drawline OK OK+ OK
Dialog Editor OK OK+ OK
Epson Driver OK OK Slick
HPFS OK OK Great
IBM Code [Code] [Efficiency] [Logic Algo/Data]
Physical Allocation Fat-Slow Tangled Inappropriate
Scheduler Slow OK Inappropriate
PMFILE Fat-Slow Monolithic Inappropriate
Control Panel Fat Disorganized OK
Help Manager Fat Disorganized Inappropriate
Spooler Fat-Slow Disorganized Inappropriate
4019 Driver Fat-Slow Hard to follow Inappropriate
SHAPI Fat-Slow OK Inappropriate
Swapper Fat OK Inappropriate
GPI Fat-Slow OK Fumbled abstractions
Based on the above, a few questions arise:
Is IBM's bad code due to bad programmers?
Is IBM's bad code due to good programmers but compelled to supply bad code for OS/2?
By supplying bad code for OS/2, was IBM protecting its mainframe business?
Microsoft's decision to extend availability of XP makes perfect sense to me. You have an OS that has been in use since 2001. A 12 month switch-over simply was a bit too ambitious. Customers are used to longer development cycles and it will take some longer to switch over than others.