"INQ"/"ComputerWorld" SAVE XP Project reaches the eyes & ears of MS

[Eastcoasthandle]

The "Save XP (http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/01/save_windows_xp.html)" Petition was started by InfoWord on January 14, 2008 with several different videos/articles explaining why people either refuse to buy Vista or why they simply prefer XP over Vista. It's real time counter is counting down to July 2, 2008 (guesstimation). To date 79,308 persons have signed the petition asking MS to keep XP. So far MS is taking notice towards demand for XP over Vista.

The story is starting to reach some news sights (like INQ (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/02/07/microsoft-spins-save-xp)) who report the following:


...In reaction to this strong showing of support for Windows XP that it obviously hadn't anticipated, Microsoft was forced to spin and backpedal. A spokesvole told Computerworld, "We're aware of it, but are listening first and foremost to feedback we hear from partners and customers about what makes sense based on their needs. That's what informed our decision to extend the availability of XP initially, and what will continue to guide us." That's the spinning right there.

But the spokesvole went on to say that Windows XP won't disappear from the market entirely after the June 30th cutoff date and that Microsoft, "understood that some market segments such as small businesses and emerging market customers require 'a little more time' before they upgrade to Vista."

"Therefore OEMs will continue to sell XP through June 30th 2008 and system builders will be able to sell XP through January 2009 as they cater to the small business markets. In emerging markets where XP Starter Edition is sold, it will still be available through June 30th, 2010."

That's the sound of Microsoft backpedalling away from forcing its customers to "upgrade" to Windows Vista.

Also,

...In late November, a survey of 961 IT professionals conducted by King Research found 90 per cent of respondents had concerns about migrating to Vista. Apprehension stemmed primarily from stability issues, but also due to compatibility problems and the cost in both hardware and software terms of migrating. 44 per cent said they would consider non-Windows operating systems to avoid these migration issues, with many stating that virtualization had made it easier to implement alternative operating systems.

In response to Infoworld's petition and other pro-XP outpourings of support, a Microsoft spokesperson in the US told Computerworld: "We're aware of it, but are listening first and foremost to feedback we hear from partners and customers about what makes sense based on their needs. That's what informed our decision to extend the availability of XP initially, and what will continue to guide us." ...

According to Infoworld's Save-XP site, many businesses and consumers aren't excited about dispensing their time and money upgrading to a new OS that they believe does not offer enough considerable advantages over XP, and are not keen on dealing with the incompatibility issues upgrading invariably causes. Their argument is simple - 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Among those who signed Infoworld's petition was Al, who posted the following message on January 14:

"We have got to save Windows XP. As of now, it is one of the most stable Windows systems...Windows Vista has still not been debugged enough and a good deal of (rather important) software is still glitchy under Vista. So until the situation is improved on both Microsoft and Third Party Vendors sides, we need to preserve Windows XP some more time."
ComputerWorld (http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1294412345;pp;1;fp;16;fpid;1)

After 1 year since it's release Vista is still having a tough time influencing the masses to adapt. So far, Vista has capture less then 12% (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10&qpmr=24&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M) of the market.

[labs23]

Its pretty good if its true, and i bet its going to be true(no reason why it wouldn't be)... LOL

[Speederlander]

I'll take 64 bit Vista over XP any day. Thanks.

[[XC] DragonOrta]

I tried Vista x64 and got so sick of it I erased everything and reinstalled XP x64.

[Shintai]

Please save Dos 6.22 aswell..pleaaaassse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[G80]

DragonOrta;2756776']I tried Vista x64 and got so sick of it I erased everything and reinstalled XP x64.


Here we go again :rolleyes:.

[Jedda]

Have been saying for months that small business and the grey shops would go linux if XP was pulled and thus MS couldn't do it.

[villa1n]

With vista getting the server 2k8 kernel, i think things will improve immensely, aside those running p3's and k7's.

I think there was a lot of pressure from companies as well, as they have 2k environments running in their workspaces still... its to expensive to keep upgrading and retraining, all the while losing stability.

[Syn.]

It is inevitable!

The only reason why people dont trust Vista is because thats all the media is pushing about Vista, FUD. When they stop others might not be afriad to try it out and see that it is better then XP.

I am still on Original Vista. My parents are loving Vista.

[NapalmV5]

you guys should tell your vista loving to ms employees going back to xp :rolleyes:

xp FTW till win7!!! well lets hope win7 will be better for crying out loud

[Craftyman.]

I luvvvvvvvvv vista :D

[RPGWiZaRD]

I only care about performance, be it 3% or 10% difference, that's why I love XP, it's the fastest OS for me (no Win2k and others aint faster). I've tried Vista using nLite to strip it to the minimum but still it was slow in benchmarks and games. I've also tried Server 2k8 and it was about equal with Vista really so I don't see how 2k8 kernel would save the day.

I soooooo wish DX10 was made XP compatible as well. :(

If I would code an OS my priorities would be:

1. Efficient kernel, as light system resource usage as possible.
2. Different versions with different features/applications, "home" version wouldn't include tools that only say network admins use, mainly media focused and "business" version would include a lot more utilities etc.
3. Compability, meaning drivers and application compability ensuring both old and new stuff runs ok.
4. Stability.

[ownage]

What many people forget is that Microsoft has software licenses contracts with hundreds of companies. Lots of those companies pay a big sum of money so they can install as many computers with XP as they want. With those contracts its possible to get windows keys for the newest windows.
Lots of those companies think like WTF, we have the right for a new windows version because we may upgrade for free, because thats in written down in hour contract.
When Microsoft promises things like that, they have to come with a new Windows after a few years. This is also a reason why they where so eager to launch Vista.

This offcoures doesn't explain why Microsoft wants to push everyone to Vista ASAP. I don't like commercial software, open-source FTW!

[Jimmer411]

bring back hardware sound!

[Shintai]

bring back hardware sound!

Already there in SP1...

[n91htmare]

Anyone know what the market share numbers were for Windows XP after 1 year of it's release?

[strange|ife]

vista is fine. Xp is fine, use what you want

sooner or later though you will give in to the beast-tage

[Zytek_Fan]

It's actually kind of sad that people have fought tooth and nail to save a 7 year old OS :shakes:

Many may think XP is the greatest OS there is, but come on, you gotta let it go sometime.

edit: You can always cut down the crap in Vista if it bothers you. Like UAC, the memory prefetcher, or even use the classic interface.

[iddqd]

People like Vista because of the way the interface looks/operates? I can do exactly the same things on XP. Actually, I have a sort-of hybrid between Mac OS Tiger and Win95/98 interface.

Y'know, something I customized for myself to fit my personal tastes.

Conversely, you might say that it's possible to make Vista operate like that? Or even "downgrade" it to an XP-style interface? Well, it's the other parts of the operating system that I don't like. Namely, compatibility. A lot of my 32 bit software will not run properly with Vista. Actually, most of it doesn't work at all. Prior to LongVista, Microsfot bent over backwards to provide... well, backwards compatibility for software. That was one of the major reasons the Windows platform was so successful:a huge library of existing software that is supported by the platform, as well as a popular new development platform.

By ditching backwards compatibility, MS gives up one of the main reasons people were locked into their platform. Now, you might switch to Vista, or Ubuntu, or Mac and none of your old software will work anyway. Well, most of it.

[Shintai]

When Windows 7 comes, the same crowd that wish to stay with Xp now will say the exact same thing. How good Vista is and how much Windows 7 sucks...

[Zytek_Fan]

People like Vista because of the way the interface looks/operates? I can do exactly the same things on XP. Actually, I have a sort-of hybrid between Mac OS Tiger and Win95/98 interface.

Y'know, something I customized for myself to fit my personal tastes.

Conversely, you might say that it's possible to make Vista operate like that? Or even "downgrade" it to an XP-style interface? Well, it's the other parts of the operating system that I don't like. Namely, compatibility. A lot of my 32 bit software will not run properly with Vista. Actually, most of it doesn't work at all. Prior to LongVista, Microsfot bent over backwards to provide... well, backwards compatibility for software. That was one of the major reasons the Windows platform was so successful:a huge library of existing software that is supported by the platform, as well as a popular new development platform.

By ditching backwards compatibility, MS gives up one of the main reasons people were locked into their platform. Now, you might switch to Vista, or Ubuntu, or Mac and none of your old software will work anyway. Well, most of it.

Ah but it isn't Microsoft's fault for software incompatibility. MS provides the software companies what they need to have working software for Vista, it's just that some software companies have failed to deliver.

[Zytek_Fan]

When Windows 7 comes, the same crowd that wish to stay with Xp now will say the exact same thing. How good Vista is and how much Windows 7 sucks...

Well, Windows 7 shouldn't be a Vista launch repeat. I'd hope there will be a nice amount of software and hardware support from the get go :up:

[Origin_Unknown]

arg, not another vista bashing thread?

[BlueAqua]

I haven't had any problems with software not working with vista from XP. Even my 3Ware raid controller that wasn't officially supported by vista works with the windows 32 bit drivers(from 3ware themselves).

One thing I don't like about vista is all the damn permission popups, I wish it at least remembered which things you gave permission. Am I missing something here?

I do like how vista installs drivers quite seamlessly for me too.

[Zytek_Fan]

I haven't had any problems with software not working with vista from XP. Even my 3Ware raid controller that wasn't officially supported by vista works with the windows 32 bit drivers(from 3ware themselves).

One thing I don't like about vista is all the damn permission popups, I wish it at least remembered which things you gave permission. Am I missing something here?

I do like how vista installs drivers quite seamlessly for me too.

Yeah, I haven't had one program not work with Vista.

And did you disable UAC?

[Origin_Unknown]

I haven't had any problems with software not working with vista from XP. Even my 3Ware raid controller that wasn't officially supported by vista works with the windows 32 bit drivers(from 3ware themselves).

One thing I don't like about vista is all the damn permission popups, I wish it at least remembered which things you gave permission. Am I missing something here?

I do like how vista installs drivers quite seamlessly for me too.

yes you are... turn off uac.

start > type msconfig > click tools > scroll to the bottom > disable UAC > click launch > reboot

[G80]

arg, not another vista bashing thread?


Even when they are fine with their OS of choice, they still need to be heard for some reason.

[Eastcoasthandle]

Anyone know what the market share numbers were for Windows XP after 1 year of it's release?

Yes, XP was released October 2001, by 2002 XP sold 89 million copies shipping 132.4 million units. Vista sold 100 million copies shipping 255.7 million units. What this all means (adding in the size of the market place from 2001 to 2007) XP captured roughly 67% market while Vista only captured 39%. Meaning XP sold more units ship by 2002 then Vista by 2008.

PC market has almost doubled in size since XP launched in the post 9-11 gloom of late 2001
Source (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/67663,majority-of-new-pcs-ship-without-windows-vista-gates-unintentionally-reveals.aspx)


IMO:
What this means is that XP did better in a more acidic market then Vista which by 2007 had a more open market for growth then XP did in 2001. The difference of 11 million copies more of Vista sold does not account for the roughly 17 million additional units or a total of 128 million units of Vista (if my calculations are correct) should have sold to account for the additional size of the market today IMO. Figures may not be 100% accurate however, the number of units of Vista sold by 2008 should have been higher IMO.

[i found nemo]

x64 bit xp is also an alternative ... but is just about as glitchy as vista from what i can tell ( won't detect webcam or sound card ) and the annoying process of going through regedit to get ur damn cd rom back.

[Kai Robinson]

The things i don't like about vista:

1) Stupid half-open TCP connections limit
2) Activation
3) Inability to disable x64 Driver Signing
4) Memory Hog
5) Underperforms compared to XP64
6) The UI sucks more than a Dyson in a cyclone

If they rectified ALL of those things, then i might consider it. Until then, it's XP64 until the driver support dries up.

[Kai Robinson]

x64 bit xp is also an alternative ... but is just about as glitchy as vista from what i can tell ( won't detect webcam or sound card ) and the annoying process of going through regedit to get ur damn cd rom back.

I've never heard of, or experienced this issue.

Glitchy? No. Stable as all hell? Yes.

Detects my sound card fine and installed with no problems.

Never had any problems with my DVD Drive either.

[hollo]

Well, Windows 7 shouldn't be a Vista launch repeat. I'd hope there will be a nice amount of software and hardware support from the get go :up:

uhh, pretty optimistic don't you think?

[Swatrecon_]

I'll take 64 bit Vista over XP any day. Thanks.

me too. I wish I had 64 bit. :(


Please save Dos 6.22 aswell..pleaaaassse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WANTS!!!! NONE OF THIS GUI NONSENSE!!!


It is inevitable!

The only reason why people dont trust Vista is because thats all the media is pushing about Vista, FUD. When they stop others might not be afriad to try it out and see that it is better then XP.

I am still on Original Vista. My parents are loving Vista.

QFT. I love Vista. My parents love it too. Seriously 20 bucks for another GB of RAM, and you're good. An Athlon 64 will run Vista fine with a X1600 and 2GB of Ram. That's a $500 system.


I luvvvvvvvvv vista :D

me tooooooooo :D


I only care about performance, be it 3% or 10% difference, that's why I love XP, it's the fastest OS for me (no Win2k and others aint faster). I've tried Vista using nLite to strip it to the minimum but still it was slow in benchmarks and games. I've also tried Server 2k8 and it was about equal with Vista really so I don't see how 2k8 kernel would save the day.

I soooooo wish DX10 was made XP compatible as well. :(

If I would code an OS my priorities would be:

1. Efficient kernel, as light system resource usage as possible.
2. Different versions with different features/applications, "home" version wouldn't include tools that only say network admins use, mainly media focused and "business" version would include a lot more utilities etc.
3. Compability, meaning drivers and application compability ensuring both old and new stuff runs ok.
4. Stability.

That's pretty ignorant. Most people don't use their OS for benchmarking or gaming.

XP will never have DX10. Ever. It's literally an impossibility.

1. Vista's kernel is the most efficient out there.
2. People complain about there being too many versions of Vista. Where have you been? There are plenty of tools. NON-DESTRUCTIVE DISK PARTIONING! You previously had to pay about $100 for decent software to do this. Incredible memory management. Superfetch, etc. Vista is doing what nothing else can in this department. It's not a memory hog, unused memory is wasted memory.
3. It's impossible to make everything run on a new OS by launch. 3-4 months after release, everything plausible ran fine on it. (by plausible i mean not super old)
4. It's stable. Don't OC, and you're fine. OC and you'll get errors. It's the tale as old as time.


It's actually kind of sad that people have fought tooth and nail to save a 7 year old OS :shakes:

Many may think XP is the greatest OS there is, but come on, you gotta let it go sometime.

edit: You can always cut down the crap in Vista if it bothers you. Like UAC, the memory prefetcher, or even use the classic interface.

It's very sad. People need to get a grip. They also need to let it go...down the drain. I ran Vista with Aero turned off(i was using the classic theme), UAC turned off, and nothing else. I had superfetch, indexing, etc. STILL GOING, and my pagefile turned OFF, and I was using 600mb of RAM. That's in Vista Ultimate. On any average system, you'll use 300-600mb of RAM (providing you have it) using XP. I could easily cut that down more by turning off the rest of the stuff I mentioned. AND GUESS WHAT!!!! YOU STILL GET ALL THE COOL FEATURES THAT DON'T RUN A PROCESS!!!! OMG!!111

[grimREEFER]

i have vista 64 on 2 pc's, and vista 32 on 2 pc's. my desktop is still xp, but im probly gonna change it to vista32 soon.

[superbowtie]

vista is fine to me, I still use XP pro because I game.

If microsoft waas serious about gamers they would release a gamer only OS that is faster then XP but still has DX10. It would have, networking and IE7. no other flashing stuff. you want to use Word you install vista or xp.

[Swatrecon_]

vista is fine to me, I still use XP pro because I game.

If microsoft waas serious about gamers they would release a gamer only OS that is faster then XP but still has DX10. It would have, networking and IE7. no other flashing stuff. you want to use Word you install vista or xp.

Yes, MS is going to release an OS for less than 5% of the market. :rofl:

Wow, MS is obviously serious, they DEVELOP DIRECTX!!! Don't like it? Use linux. In fact you should create your own linux-based OS, so everything can be just the way you like it. :lol: That's my recommendation. I'm sure OpenGL will do everything for you that DX9 doesn't.

[Syn.]

The things i don't like about vista:

1) Stupid half-open TCP connections limit
2) Activation
3) Inability to disable x64 Driver Signing
4) Memory Hog
5) Underperforms compared to XP64
6) The UI sucks more than a Dyson in a cyclone

If they rectified ALL of those things, then i might consider it. Until then, it's XP64 until the driver support dries up.

1) netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled , its a new net feature that needs newer routers/modems to function right if you have problems with it disable it.
2) Simple and easy, cant expect nothing less as they are trying to stop people running copies.
3) That is because MS wants all drivers to be signed to provide security in the system. The drivers are one of biggest problem starters on Windows making sure they come from a proper source eliminates obvious problems. So blame the drivers for not being signed or just run x86.
4) Oh no way a program that actually uses the memory instead of letting it sit there empty, how awful.
5) Lets see XP is based off Win2k and then Win2k was refined to make the XP. Now XP is simpler OS compared to Vista and has had over 5 years of tweaks and tuning done just on it. Not counting the tuning done on the Win2k. When you think about that its kind of obvious dont you think?
6) You can have the old UI style if you want, but then again maybe you are just afraid of change?


yes you are... turn off uac.

start > type msconfig > click tools > scroll to the bottom > disable UAC > click launch > reboot

Or you just click on the Orb (Start) > Click on your Account picture > Turn User Account Control On or Off

Another alternative is Control Panel > User Accounts > Turn User Account Control On or Off


You can not compare XP to Vista, compare Vista to Win2k. Win7 is going to be the new XP.

[pacific vortex]

hmmmm...this all sounds familiar...kinda like when xp got released a few years back

[Aleki]

hmmmm...this all sounds familiar...kinda like when xp got released a few years back

haha, i hear that!
i got xp dec 01. every one was making fun of me for having the "fisher price" windows and claiming how it was a resource hog. 2000 owned everything out there and xp was a waste of money they would say. lol, what do you think theyre running now? certainly not linux or appleware :D
got vista 6 moths ago. ive been hearing the same crap from different people now. it has its quirks, but nothing a little ironing out wont fix (just like xp mind you). i guess i'll just wait till everyone else comes to accept it so i can laugh at them for owning a copy of vista :rolleyes:

edit: i will guarantee you that win7 will not be perfect at launch. this same os bashing will take place where vista users will say 7 is crap. it happens every time there is a new release. history just has a tendancy rearing its ugly head and repeating the same nonsense with every microsoft os(except for msoft ME, that was just a plain flop)

[xlink]

XP needs to die so vista gets more attention driver wise

[superbowtie]

Yes, MS is going to release an OS for less than 5% of the market. :rofl:

Wow, MS is obviously serious, they DEVELOP DIRECTX!!! Don't like it? Use linux. In fact you should create your own linux-based OS, so everything can be just the way you like it. :lol: That's my recommendation. I'm sure OpenGL will do everything for you that DX9 doesn't.

Ohh I forgot the magic rule of thumb when it comes to OS releases i guess you'd better tell Apple since they have about 7% market share not to release any more OS X versions. I never said i didn't like dx9 or dx10, if you haven't noticed Microsoft has this whole Campaign "Games for Windows" going also guess thats for nothing too.
here's a quotes from the Peter Moore, corporate vice president of the Interactive Entertainment Business in the Entertainment and Devices Division of Microsoft Corp.

This is what he says about vista launch.

"Will be the most significant day in gaming for the next serveral years.".

Here is another quote talking about microsoft and gaming:

"Unlike any OS before, we’re driving Windows Vista as a true gaming platform, complete with a broad marketing campaign that introduces the Games for Windows brand, complemented by ground-breaking branded titles from Microsoft Game Studios as well as from many of the world’s leading game developers. We are also investing in a more consistent brand presence at retail that will create a true category that will easy for the consumer to discover and navigate.

When we merged the gaming team from Windows into the Interactive Entertainment Group, we did so to kick off a renaissance in PC gaming, fueled by two factors: the release of Windows Vista and a revitalized commitment to the platform. "

There's no question their serious about gaming on the pc what i'm saying is we need an OS thats as fast as XP but has dx10. A version of Vista that is 100% optimized for games. What we have now isn't. windows 7 may just do that.

btw how may typical users are using 64 bit operating systems? I guess someone should call biil gates and have him pull the stop lever on development!

just in the US 63% of the population games thats about 189 million people. I'm sure their not all on the Wii.
Maybe your just counting the 10 million US wow players.:rofl:

[Terru]

Vista x64 for me. I used to be vista, then went back to Xp, but went back to vista again. Vista boots way faster, and shutsdown faster, which is more important to me than 1 extra FPS.

Also, who whines about using ram? Thats why you have the damn stuff! What good does 200 meg used of 4 gigs do you? You get to sit in xp staring at your new hardware NOT being used. At least in vista, ram hog it may be, takes advantage of it...

Vista has also never ever crashed on me, and I use an X-fi based card with a 2900xt.

However, I dont pay for new OS's, or any os's at all actaully, so I guess my opinion doesnt count... But if everything was free I would keep my vista :)

[Kai Robinson]

I have no problem with Vista HAVING drivers signing but i want the ability to TURN IT OFF IF I WANT. Yes, lets all blame the makers of CoreTemp, AtiTool and numerous others for not kowtowing to microsofts signing policy and handing over wads of cash they do not have. It stifles independant software writers and custom driver writers. If i wanted a Vendor bloody lock-in, i'd go buy a Mac.

An OS shouldn't expand to fill as much memory as possible - on the contrary, it should use as few resources as possible and let applications have the majority.

I'm not afraid of change, but the UI is ugly and rediculous.

And as for the activation thing - i wont buy an OS that requires me to inform MS when i'm installing it, and on what hardware - they have no business knowing that. Until i can find a VLK edition, or they decide to be less stupid on that front - i WONT use Vista.

Actually, XP64 is based off the Server 2003 x64 Kernel - but still, the fact its had time invested in it (despite minimal interference) shouldn't make that a BAD thing. The only thing XP64 doesn't do that Vista does, is DX10. And until such time that DX10 titles become widespread and i have the harware to run it adequately, its yet another 'x' in the box against me going Vista.

[iddqd]

Ah but it isn't Microsoft's fault for software incompatibility. MS provides the software companies what they need to have working software for Vista, it's just that some software companies have failed to deliver.

"It isn't Apple's/Linus Torvald's fault that software isn't compatible with MacOS/Linux. They provide an SDK that tells the companies what they need to have working software for MacOS/Linux, it's just that some software companies have failed to deliver."

I actually don't care whose fault it is. Software that has been working since the windows 95 days with no modifications is no longer working, and that's my main concern. Once they update all the software, maybe they could convince me to migrate to Vista. Until then, it's useless to me.

On a side note, it pisses me off that operating systems are used to lock people into certain platforms, when they should - and indeed can be something that is completely abstract and invisible, much like a hardware component. Especially when hardware virtualization makes emulation very easy and efficient, there's no reason beyond someone's business model that you should even worry about what OS to use, as all and any OS technically does exactly the same thing, and as I've already stated, UI is a completely irrelevant layer that can be infinitely customized to boot.

[Shintai]

Ohh I forgot the magic rule of thumb when it comes to OS releases i guess you'd better tell Apple since they have about 7% market share not to release any more OS X versions. I never said i didn't like dx9 or dx10, if you haven't noticed Microsoft has this whole Campaign "Games for Windows" going also guess thats for nothing too.
here's a quotes from the Peter Moore, corporate vice president of the Interactive Entertainment Business in the Entertainment and Devices Division of Microsoft Corp.


But for Apple they release a new OSX version to 100% of their userbase...

Only 5% of the users nags over Vista, or less. 95% gladly uses it.

[GAR]

Vista X64 SP1 is the BEST OS i have ever used, smoother than windows XP ever was, the thing you people need to understand is windows vista comes bloated, you need to give it some tums and turn off a buncha crap you dont use.......after tweaking, only 15% of my ram is being used at idle, the OS overall is amazingly smooth and awsome.

[iddqd]

But for Apple they release a new OSX version to 100% of their userbase...

Only 5% of the users nags over Vista, or less. 95% gladly uses it.

So? Only 5% know the difference between a power cord and an ethernet cable.

[RPGWiZaRD]

Even if you disable superfetch, ram usage is still very high. Meaning you have less free for games and applications compared to XP. I don't mind if it eats a lot when I don't do something but sucks if it eats a lot ALL the time.

But the kernel also seems slow still, I'm a betatester for a PS2 emulator which is heavily dependant on CPU/system performance and only needs a little ram (1GB and you're fine) and depending on settings you use you can either get it GPU or CPU/System/Ram performance dependent and when the latter is true, Vista is quite a lot slower as then it's heavily CPU dependent and minorly RAM and system performance and in this scenario Vista seems slower which I don't like.

When above mentioned things are fixed I'll switch. But I think before that's fixed there's probably already Windows 7 in alpha/beta stage lol which would prolly be faster. I don't think M$ would manage to get a slower OS than Vista. (By slower I don't mean bootup times and such but application performance). SP3 even boosted XP a bit so Vista has an even higher gap to catch up now.

[Gig4moller]

1. Vista's kernel is the most efficient out there.


You, sir, made my day. :rofl:

[WeaponX]

I'll let you guys argue over this I guess, I'm using Vista 64 without a problem, yes there was some tweaking to be done but it wasn't any different than when I had to install Xp so yeah...

[icon57]

I'll take 64 bit Vista over XP any day. Thanks.

me too

die xp die

[Cuthalu]

edit: You can always cut down the crap in Vista if it bothers you. Like UAC, the memory prefetcher, or even use the classic interface.

But it's still slower and uses hdd when idling. Besides, Vistas security has way too much big brother elements in it. For example, why the hell can't I delete Vista whem I'm using XP? "Access is denied" lol, I WAN'T MY ACCESS!

[iddqd]

But it's still slower and uses hdd when idling. Besides, Vistas security has way too much big brother elements in it. For example, why the hell can't I delete Vista whem I'm using XP? "Access is denied" lol, I WAN'T MY ACCESS!

Hm? You managed to install XP in the new version of NTFS? I've always had to delete the partition and format with the older version of NTFS.

[Rilla927]

I bought Vista Ultimate to see what all the bad buzz was about and I have come to the conclusion that some people really have no clue as to what they are doing and then because of human error the OS gets blamed. Don't get me wrong Vista is not perfect we all know this, I think some was due to improper procedures despite what folks were trying to do on their machines.

I didn't have a problem finding what I was looking for in Vista. Vista does boot up and shut down a whole lot faster than my XP. I have not had a single crash or problem with Vista.

I think it's silly to compare XP to Vista cuz they are very different OS's and they both have there uses that vary to every individual of why they would use one or the other. People need to stop squabbling over this and use what makes them happy and go on with life.

[Eastcoasthandle]

Keep Windows XP until 2009, analysts tell Microsoft (http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/08/06NF-save-xp-analysts_1.html) infoworld's take on the situation

[User9498]

Perhaps the general public has gotten computer savvy, and doesn't want to be forced into early adopter status. There will always be enthusiasts to run the latest betas and newest hardware. The average computer user probably has no need for the few benefits and power features over XP. They have no interest in paying money for something that isn't broken. Of course, Microsoft discontinuing support for XP will change all of that... hence the groundswell of indignation.

[WeaponX]

Well, Microsoft discontinueing support basically means there won't be any new updates to Xp Pro correct? If that's the case, people who are perfectly happy with Xp Pro can stay on Xp if they really love it and people who have moved on with Vista will simply move on, that's all. Nobodys arm is being twisted to make the move so harm done right? All this hussin and fussin for nothing...

[User9498]

Discontinuing support means: compatibility updates, but more importantly security updates, dwindle to few (and then none) after June 30th 2008. With such a large XP userbase this might seem a really imprudent move by Microsoft. Hackers will stick around long enough to exploit the larger unprotected userbase, they too won't be migrating to Vista. I'm just saying.

[irev210]

I think SP1 is a good step for vista.


They fixed the darn network stack. I am a happy guy.


I like some of the other comments, they are funny.

Thx for the chuckles :)

[7499richard]

hopefully they will make XP DX10 compatible...

didn't have a chance to read all the post was trhis already mentioned, I am sure it was...

[Swatrecon_]

hopefully they will make XP DX10 compatible...

didn't have a chance to read all the post was trhis already mentioned, I am sure it was...

O MY GOD, PEOPLE!!!

It's an impossibility. I literally can't happen. You NEED Vista's API and Kernel for DX10 to run.


- Windows XP cannot run DirectX 10 (technically, Direct3D 10) applications because of the significant changes in the graphics API and driver model
- And while I’m on it, the Xbox 360 cannot run Direct3D 10 because it lacks the Shader Model 4.0 hardware.
-http://letskilldave.com/archive/2006/10/17/DirectX-10-for-Windows-XP_3F00_--Repeat-after-me_3A00_-No.-No.-No_2E00_.aspx


http://blog.chase.net.au/index.php/2007/05/directx-10-on-xp-rant/

Ugh...This should a required thing to read.

[iddqd]

Well, technically you can do it with wrappers. You lose some performance, but it's doable.

[Shintai]

Well, technically you can do it with wrappers. You lose some performance, but it's doable.

You mean almost all performance? Also you lose the abilities since they are not there. And should a DX10 game actually use more objects than DX9 is capable of. How would you render it? How to handle SM4 and GS4?

People was fooled with an SDK and believed in DX10 for XP. DX10 features done with software rendering and performance was shown with DX9 code running on DX9 HW and API :rofl:

[jimmyz]

Give it up people, we all have really no choice in the matter. unless vista was truly broken and non- functional xp is going to be phased out.
I had been in the beta program for a year prior to release and I can safely say the issues that the o.s. had at first have been fixxed or at least are not causing problems now. people buy into all this B.S. spread around the web and then they spout it as if it is truth. the dx10 crap is a perfect example. the ram usage is another...waaaaa everybody gets mad about seeing 600mb being used to keep apps loading quickly and act like it is killing their performance. vista handles ram and services for that matter in a much different way than xp did.

I use both XP Pro and Vista home prem. (both 32bit) in a dual boot raid 0 set-up and I can honestly say I spend more time in Vista currently than XP.

One change I would love: Allow a special panel at m$ to review drivers for the odd-ball programs we overclockers use, such as Ati-tool , rivatuner etc. the makers of those programs which are freely distributed often don't have the resources to get their drivers reviewed and approved for the signed driver status. maybe issue a certain code number or password to allow unsigned drivers too be used, instead of having to unlock all the security safeguards by disabling the signed drivers check. seems like a good work around to me and would still keep the noobs safe since they wouldn't have the password.

[Kai Robinson]

Uhm - well what about just allowing the end user to decide for themselves whether to disable the driver signing? Most 'n00bs' wont use things like ATITool, they'll have at least some idea of what it does and what the risks are (none, imo).

I dont like being dictated to by a software company as to what i can do with an OS i may pay £300 for ($600).