Windows XP to be retired in 2008

[Joey]

Windows XP will stop being available on new PCs from the end of January 2008.

Microsoft is keeping to a plan to stop selling the operating system even though surveys show a lukewarm response to Windows Vista among consumers.

A poll by US market research firm Harris Interactive found that only 10% of those questioned were planning to upgrade to Vista in the near future.

All versions of XP, including those made for media centre or tablet PCs, are affected by the decision.

System shock

Microsoft has confirmed that from 31 January 2008 large PC makers, such as Dell, HP and Toshiba, will no longer be able to buy licences for the software so they can install it on new machines.

Windows XP is being retired to make way for Windows Vista, the consumer editions of which were launched in Europe on 30 January.

However, a poll released in early April suggests that Vista has yet to win over significant numbers of potential customers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6551429.stm

[Brother Jerry]

I know I do not want Vista.

I believe if they spent more time focusing on trying to figure out how to make their product better as far as stability, usability, and just an overall pleasure to use.  INstead they focus more on how to protect themselves while trying to say it is to protect us. 

They would not have to worry about things if they would just drop the price of their system down to a price range that pretty much anyone would be willing to pay (say down to like $50 for the basic)  Then they would not have to worry about piracy anymore either.

[Shammu]

I know I do not want Vista.

I believe if they spent more time focusing on trying to figure out how to make their product better as far as stability, usability, and just an overall pleasure to use.  INstead they focus more on how to protect themselves while trying to say it is to protect us. 

They would not have to worry about things if they would just drop the price of their system down to a price range that pretty much anyone would be willing to pay (say down to like $50 for the basic)  Then they would not have to worry about piracy anymore either.

AMEN brother AMEN

Sides that, I like my Windows XP pro.

[Joey]

Price aside, as we all know the price of an O/S is scandalous, you will find that in a number of years, most people will be using Vista without any problems. What is happening now is exactly what happened a few years back when Microsoft introduced Windows XP and gradually withdrew Windows 98. Everyone was up in arms about XP and how useless it was and yet now, most people love XP. And i can count myself among these. When i switched from 98 to XP, i hated it. It was the most confusing thing i came across. But now i cannot imagine using anything else....But i know my next machine will have Vista on it and unless i plan on using another system like an Apple or Linux, i have no choice....But i'm sure, give it another year or two, when all the bugs have been ironed out, i will enjoy Vista as much as i like XP now.

[Brother Jerry]

However I was one of those that loved XP when it came out.  I enjoyed it when I worked with it in beta and have enjoyed it ever since.  There was a while that my PC was running W2K but it was server variety and that was why I did not convert it to XP and keep it there. 

As far as me converting to Vista.  I am sure that I will someday.  But it will be with reluctance.  And I continue to hope that the 'nix world will pick up and more applications and games can get a port in the 'nix world.  Cause I would much rather go that sort of route right now. 

[Shammu]

I can see it for those on dial up...................

[Brother Jerry]

LOL...that is great...

[barelahh]

I know I do not want Vista.

I believe if they spent more time focusing on trying to figure out how to make their product better as far as stability, usability, and just an overall pleasure to use.  INstead they focus more on how to protect themselves while trying to say it is to protect us. 

They would not have to worry about things if they would just drop the price of their system down to a price range that pretty much anyone would be willing to pay (say down to like $50 for the basic)  Then they would not have to worry about piracy anymore either.

They wouldn't have to worry about piracy if they made their windows opensource either. they still have thier main products to sell that run on their software.
Besides why does anyone run a virus on their machine!???  and Pay to do it

i run unix and have been virus free for years, AnD i don't have to pay out extortion money to the virus scanner companies every year since unix doesn't get virus's.    On the topic of software availability, What isn't available for Unix??  I have everything Windows users have but the virus problems.

[Brother Jerry]

What is on a MS machine that is not on a 'nix box?
Games for easy one.  Yes you can run emulation packages but the driver support is not there, nor is the performance. 
A True MS Office package.  The open source office equivalents are just plain not equivalents, and anytime you add another shell on top of one shell you start to cut down on performance. 

One thing the Mac commercials have done right is that they have shown how different computers have different places in life.  And 'nix boxes have their place as well.  I would prefer to run say an ISP off of 'nix.  Web servers, mail servers, etc should be 'nix whenever possible.  But desktop applications I would stick with MS.  I do not know the role of a Mac anymore though... 

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I'm glad to find this thread. I've had months of crashes and nightmares with Windows XP Pro. I bought my current machine in 2004 with Windows Media Center 2004, a version of XP Pro. I really didn't need the Media Center, but a special package deal was a great buy at Sam's and I bought it.

I had pretty good service from this machine until about 12-2006, and then I started noticing that Windows Updates were causing all kinds of interesting problems that got worse and worse. I went through stages with updates on and off, but the machine started crashing longer and longer. So, I've had just about all I can handle and have decided to switch.

Before anyone thinks to ask, my OS and all Windows Software is completely LEGAL. The MS update sites always confirmed it as completely legal until just recently. The fact remains that I have nothing but LEGAL Windows OS, and I even have the original, protected boot sectors on the machine.

There is no such thing as a restore disk or re-installation CD for Windows these days. This is the big problem with Windows. I have a fairly good install CD for most of the Windows Media Center 2004 SP1 version, and that's what I could go back to without many problems. But, I couldn't get SP2 for it or the hundreds of updates since 2004. There really isn't any way to reconstruct it, and Microsoft knows this. This is another way to convince you to give up and buy the new Windows OS. Well, I am going to give up, but I leaving Windows and refuse to be held hostage by Bill Gates ever again. I am through buying software every 5 years and lining the pockets of Microsoft. I'm almost through with Microsoft commanding my computer and guiding me into contrived or forced decisions on spending more money that I don't have.

YES - you can keep the older version of Windows on the computer and refuse to spend money every 5 years. I ask you - If it crashes completely, do you have a way to re-install what you have completely? The answer is NO - you don't, and you can't get a way to re-install what you have when you stopped. You can only go backward in time and re-install a version without the updates and fixes.

SO, I have decided to go with Ubuntu, a new Linux desktop version that is all open source and free. I will lose the use of most of the commercial software I've bought over the years, but the Microsoft replacement program is designed to do that anyway. Many huge customers and individuals are doing the same thing for many reasons. One of the biggest reasons appears to be having Bill Gates hold you hostage and steering you into expensive replacements and upgrades on his schedule, not your schedule. Microsoft is also beginning to act like they own your computer, and MICROSOFT DOES decide what you WILL or WILL NOT install or un-install on a piece of hardware that does NOT belong to Microsoft. If effect, Microsoft wants to rent your computer you've already bought to you and make it fit only for a trot-line anchor if you don't stay with their program of upgrades and replacements.

OK, there are a couple of questions that I'd like to ask. First, please let me inform everyone that I am more than somewhat computer literate. SO, here we go:

1 - Can you install or un-install what you want or don't want on your own computer?

2 - With the newer computers, are there many times that you have to seek permission from Microsoft to do something with your own computer?

3 - With the newer computers, do you have a way to re-install after a major crash without going backward in time to the point where you bought your computer?

4 - If YES to number 3 above, how did you do this to incorporate all of the updates, and are you violating the Microsoft EULA with whatever way you discovered to accomplish this?

5 - Has Microsoft provided a way where normal backups are of value in restoring portions of the OS after a major crash from virus, trojan, etc? (I'm not talking about your work, rather the Operating System).
_________________________

Other than robbing users blind after millions of hostage situations every year, how many other entities are paying Microsoft every year - AND WHY?

The questions go on and on. Things appear to be getting much worse in terms of Microsoft trying to dictate what will or won't be done with equipment that doesn't belong to them. I don't think it's my imagination that average people are spending more and more time in keeping Microsoft happy and less time in getting to use what already belongs to them - their own computer.

Is the Microsoft red tape getting thicker by the day?

Does Microsoft exercise more and more control over what goes on a computer with their OS?

Do other vendors have to pay Microsoft to get some sort of secret so they can sell software for a Microsoft OS?

Has anyone heard of the rapidly escalating nightmares from individuals, organizations, and even governments that Microsoft has bullied or tried to run over in hundreds of different ways?

(Soap box mode off) - Any comments. Please - if you think I'm wrong on any of the points I tried to make, please let me know. BILL, if you're listening, this is still a free country, and I will express my opinion.   

[Brother Jerry]

BEP
You are right on with that.

And if more developers would spend a little more time and come up with ports for the 'nix world then there could be some problems for the M$ world.

We can all thank Mac for the problems that we have today.  They were actually the start of taking an operating system and making more than just a software application that provide a user interface to the aspects of the computer.  IE an interface with the hard drive to check contents, a package to display contents of memory to video, etc.  Now days the operating system has become that and so much more, thanks to the advent of the GUI in mainstream.

As to your questions and comments.  System restore will allow a certain point of restoration that you have talked about.  However most virii like to plant themselves in the restore files so that when you restore you also bring back the virus.  So you would have to be ready to purge it after every and any restore.  There are also applications out there that would allow you to backup/ghost entire drives or whatever you need.  thus allowing a certain level of restoration as well. 

NO operating system is going to allow you to reinstall from original install disks and magically have patches applied.  So if you have a major crash in anything you are going to have to go back in time at least to some point and start over.

I would love to be able to purchase just the raw OS for even Vista.  All it comes with is explorer (for drive exploration and such), and then all applicable dll's and such for interfacing with applicable hardware.  I would have to install notepad, wordpad, CDWriting, picture display, etc, etc.  Media player is not part of an operating system...neither is notepad.  Just allow me to get the very basics and then I can go and get the rest.  You know ftp is not part of an OS either.

[nChrist]

Hello Brother Jerry,

I think that I would also like the idea of buying a raw OS and being able to install only what I want - nothing more. This involves another problem of buying a new computer. It comes loaded with programs that work fine, tons of trial stuff, and tons of advertising. In fact, it's not a real easy task to determine what belongs to you to use, what will expire, and easy ways to clean trials and advertisements off of a brand new computer. As for me, I don't want the trials, advertisements, and other garbage on a brand new computer that I buy. If there are bundles of software to buy and install by the manufacturer, that should be the sole choice of the buyer, not the maker of the OS. BUT, I understand that the maker of the OS dictates what trials and advertisements will go on a new computer, and the manufacturer doesn't have any choice but to comply.

It really doesn't matter what the buyer wants or doesn't want. The new computer comes loaded down with trials, junk, and advertisements. SO, that first emergency re-install set also comes with the garbage on it. Does anyone really enjoy trying to figure out how to get all the garbage off of a new computer? As for me, I don't like it at all. SO, maybe it would be nice to be able to buy a computer either empty or setup with ONLY what the buyer wants.

If you can't tell, I'm more than just irritated right now about computers and software. I remember a time when old-fashioned backups actually worked just fine, but I guess those times are over. By the way, I have gone through the problem of having corrupted system restores that re-installed the problem that crashed your computer in the first place. In fact, I went through that recently and finally used the cleanmgr to clean out the system restore. I still find it hard to believe that system restore was using over 12 GIG of disk space on my computer, and who knows what all was in there!

My new OS is shipped and on the way. I look forward to see what happens.

[daniel1212av]

>  ask you - If it [windows] crashes completely, do you have a way to re-install what you have completely? The answer is NO - you don't, and you can't get a way to re-install what you have when you stopped. <

What i have done is, after i have fully installed Windows and updated +  customized it, use a copy of Linux to copy the C drive (which is just one partition) onto another drive, soit can be restored. I recently moved the whole thing and it wors fine. 

What i have done is, after i have fully installed Windows and updated +  customized it, use a copy of Linux to copy the C drive (which is just one partition) onto another drive, soit can be restored. I recently moved the whole thing and it works fine. 

As for the whole MS Os things, i strongly recommend not "upgrading” to Vista.now. I am blessed to be part of a small faith ministry, and was recently given a new Dell e-520 desktop with Vista reinstalled. You can read my reasons why i advise not switching to Vista – at least Home Basic, here: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=215919&messageID=2209303

Recently i installed XP  on a 2nd drive and it is appreciably faster, and i  can also fax and upload FTP to our site (peacebyjesus.com), as well as us some particular software which i like,  which things i cannot  do with Vista Home Basic (however, as of yet i cannot use the Stand by or Hibernate feature in XP, which works with Vista). And navigation is must better (after customizing it).

As for Linux (My two favorites were the latest Ubuntu and PcLinuxOS,), as Christians we should not use misleading hype, and sadly that is what i honestly find among  many Linux users who tout it as a complete replacement for most Windows users . While i definitely  am in favor of the concept and community type development and support, and while it has come a long way and is improving even faster lately, it is not yet ready to be a replacement for most Windows users yet (+ i am ignorant of Mac's). The Linux forums themselves testify to this, as one must  resort to finding and running scripts to do many many things that  should be done through GUI's, while legally installing codecs in the US is still a  problem, and the software data base needs to grow greater.  Most Windows users do not have the time or desire to learn such, but i hope in the future Linux will become more user friendly  (without being like MS, which seems to think we are children who need large icons, and to whom details and files and extensions must be hid).

A particular  issue for me in Vista  and the Linux distros i tried is that of security. In 7 years of extensive Internet use on 9x PC's i only realized one virus and minor instances of spyware, and could easily keep tract of what was running etc. With Vista, not only do you have the nag ware UAC (which i soon turned off), and over 40 processes running at boot up, but  it assumes ownership of files and even folders you created,  while making it time consuming to obtain full control over some of them: http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/02/09/how-to-quickie-vista-permissions/  (even that does not always work  for me).  An OS should allow users to determine if they want to “lock the doors,” and make it easy for them to unlock things, not assume ownership of what you choose to make or delete.  And without hunting for “chown” scripts to run on Terminals, as Linux requires ( i just wanted to migrate my Thunderbird email profile into USR, but no go).

This kind of imposed security enters into the moral realm, for one argument is that security settings are to protect other PC's from receiving malware and unwanted emails from infected computers. This is a justifiable concern and for which there are programs (i first rely on pray and press), could be also prevented by  safe surfing and making users more are of what is going on in their computers, and changes thereof (WinPatrol, etc.), rather than things like taking away your “free will” to delete a file you do not want.

 Yet while such imposed security by a creation of finite man is justified, at the same time God's laws, which would have prevented the death of 500,00 Americas (alone) from AID's, let alone save millions more lives as well as millions of dollars, and above all eternal sous, are scoffed at and thrown off,  in desire for freedom to follow our lusts. And yet the Almighty God gives us a free will to choose good or evil, and when He does Sovereignly prevent evil from happening, it is according to His omniscience ,which finite man cannot fathom nor approach to, and perfect holiness, which only can be imputed by repentance and  faith  in Christ. Praise ye the LORD.

[daniel1212av]

 I alluded in the above post that my  Vista Basic would not connect using FTP.  Well, thank God i was not alone and someone much more learned than me posted a solution:

Copy and paste the below into an elevated CMD prompt [paste CMD in Start>Run command prompt and hit Enter]:

netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled

http://help.lockergnome.com/vista/FTP-Trouble-Vista-ftopict37638.html

FireFTP worked on the next attempt. I had tried using Passive mode prior to that to no avail.

An added confirmation that this was the problem is that NVU also works. Praise the Lord! I had actually gone to dual booting with XP (bootloader can be tricky) in order to upload (and to use Fax).

Thought i would pass that along in case others have the same problem.

[nChrist]

Hello Daniel1212av,

I've read about all kinds of problems with Vista, and I wouldn't install it if it was free. I understand security concerns, but I honestly don't believe a lot of the problems are related to Microsoft trying to address security concerns. Some of them are, but a lot of them are in trying to corner the market, monopolize, and put Microsoft in the driver's seat for all kinds of pay services. They are also being paid by many 3rd parties with commercial interests in selling MORE SOFTWARE, not to mention MICROSOFT'S solid intent to sell more software.

Many of the problems present in Vista are becoming to be present in XP if one continues updates. Microsoft is beginning to be the ultimate spyware in reporting to numerous sources that have commercial interests in what you do, what you might do, and what you don't do. Much of this isn't related to security at all, and Microsoft has been called on these issues. They are the BIG BOY on the block, and they want to be in charge of everything you do on your computer. That also makes them party to profits that are possible with any money you might spend. The ultimate is for them to make you completely dependent on them.

Anyone can easily see what's going on if they take a hard look. I could cite hundreds of examples, but I'll only cite a few. You install a printer and it comes with its own drivers and software. I don't know how long it will take, but Microsoft will replace those drivers with Microsoft. If you have a firewall, start logging numerous outgoing functions. You will find many going to Microsoft, with or without updates being turned on. Vista appears to be broken on all kinds of software that has nothing to do with security at all. This is the start of thoughts for you to update your software so that it will be trouble free with Vista. UM? - this same thing has happened with every other major release of Windows. There might be work-arounds for some of them, but you really need to buy new software, and that's the whole idea. If many of the difficulties are due to enhanced security, they failed because there is no enhanced security. Vista is riddled with security holes straight out of the box. BUT, you can get 5 years of upgrades to close some of those security holes, and the game goes on and on and on. The real name of the game is to make you need to buy and replace software every 5 years.

In terms of Linux being a cure-all, you haven't heard that from me. I'm also sure that there will be some things that I won't be able to do, and that's just fine in my book. I haven't even completed the switch over yet, but I'm looking forward to it. There will be a few problems, and I'm looking forward to them also. They will be a different kind of problems, and I will be out of the Microsoft games. In terms of hype about Linux, I'm not aware of any. They tell you the truth up front, and there aren't any secrets about what might not work like Windows. After all, it isn't Windows. Linux offers all kinds of FREE alternatives, and many of the alternatives are excellent. Open Office and Firefox are just two of thousands of examples. I chose Linux Christian Ubuntu, and I think that I'll be quite happy with it. They even have public support forums. I think that some of the major differences involve the end of secrets and all kinds of games being played with users. By games, I'm not referring to something fun, rather something that is irritating. Enhanced security on Linux is not a hype at all. Linux is definitely more secure, and they have the track record to prove it.

In short, I'm ready to do without a few things that Windows will do and Linux won't. Linux didn't make any secret out of limitations for those who are used to Windows. Everything is open, up front, and honest, so there isn't any hype at all. It's FREE, so what motive would they have to lie to you. It's a non-commercial operating system. I'll go ahead and state the obvious - Microsoft hates anything that's non-commercial, most specifically anything that reduces their massive profits from their monopolies. I, for one, have decided to remove myself from the money game. Further - I'll be in charge of my computer - not Microsoft.