Windows XP death is near don't you think?

[Freezeron]

Ok, here is the question for this poll...

Does that OS from Microsoft suit you anymore. And by suit you I mean that for me I builded two machines in a such lap of time and I got a lot of issues with the OS... ( I'm not a specialist, but I can take care of a great amount of problem for the pc's).
I encounter a lot of hardware (made for vista) and software issues (made and also optimized for vista) and I think (this is a personal opinion and I can't be blamed for that) that Microsoft is working on made us change to Windows Vista...

Don't misunderstand me I'm using quite a lot (trying also) of OSes (Linux based usually) and I will always try to find the best (even that I think that we all seek (the computer's geek) I mean, for problems to solve) OS for our proper use...

So I'm stopping the chat and see what do you think about that matter.

 

[descendency]

I'll continue using XP until Vista has SP3 or the new Windows comes out and shows that it can behave like it should.

XP is just a superior operating system, unless you need 4+ gbs of RAM. And at that point, you may need to look away from Windows.

 

[malveaux]

Heya,

I will use XP until I simply cannot any longer. And when that happens, I will look for something other than Vista (I like Ubuntu Linux, I can still run most everything there just fine; and it's free). I do not believe that an OS should take such a huge toll on your computer's resources. That's completely absurd. You never see your OS. It's there to give an environment for your other applications. Not to sit there and eat your resouces, idling, and your applications should not have to complete for the majority of your computer's resources from Vista. Vista is a piece of bloated crap. All driver support is superior in XP. Performance is superior in XP in every application. There's really no reason to move to Vista in my opinion. I've yet to encounter anything worth using that was made for Vista that doesn't have a better alternative or version in XP that has way better support to boot. Vista is a horrible OS for people who like to know what's going on with their PC, control what is going on, and frankly, don't want to have to have a beast of a machine just to run a damned OS in addition to other applications. An OS should be simple, efficient, and expandable and updatable. Not a maze of security issues, bloated gigs of useless crap, and pretty pictures that you never look at unless you just minimize everything and like to stare at the desktop--no one does this.

XP will live a long life. Vista on the other hand will have to get a lot of work and the typical system will have to increase dramatically before the majority of the people are using it, to make up for how much hog it eats, before it becomes something worth using. Even then, it's still not worth using. Microsoft knows it and is already moving on to their next OS, instead of trying to better Vista. That said, I hope for their sake that they figure something out and take a look at what other OS's are doing--slim, tight and efficient. Vista is a clunk of inefficient code with over worked graphics to make it look not even as good as a simple lite-step mod for XP or the standard GUI in various Linux Distros.

Vista is not worth anyone's time or money.

Expect a completely stripped version of Vista in the future. It may be worth something.

Very best,

 

[Zoron]

I think you've been reading the anti-Vista propaganda back from when it was first released and haven't had a second look. It's amazing people read something bad and cling to that belief for years.

Your beloved XP was talked about the same way you talk about Vista now. I can guarantee that Windows 7 will also receive the same treatment... as will every new OS MS releases. People don't like change and have irrational fears when it comes to a new operating system.

As for "using your resources", well what is the point of having resources if you're never going to use them? Do you get 4GB of RAM just so you can brag about having 2GB+ of it free? No, you get it so that your computer can actually make use of it... and if it's not being used, then it's being wasted. Vista makes use of the RAM that's sitting there doing nothing in the first place. If an application needs the RAM, Vista will happily release it.

The performance gap is no longer a gap. SP1 made some big improvements and hardware vendors are writing some decent drivers for it, finally. What you've heard or read a year ago no longer applies. The 64-bit iteneration of Vista is actually starting to become very popular.

The only reason that XP's support was extended is due to Vista being delayed. MS announced this at Vista's launch, yet there are articles out there making claims that it's been due to Vista's poor adoption rate. Well it's hard to have a 100% adoption rate when you've just released the product, isn't it? It certainly wasn't because people were demanding extended support for XP. Ten years is long enough... time to let it go.

Actually take the time to use the OS before you regurgitate old "facts". Going on third-hand information read on the internet isn't the way to evaluate anything.

 

[Scotteq]

<reads survey... Thinks it's dumb and not representative of reality... Notes that people still use Win 2K and older OSs... Then votes 'XP is Dead, Long Live XP' because that's the choice that's most reflective of how the world actually works>



XP will die of attrition. And over the next 5~10 years it'll fade. This is the same "Death" suffered by every OS ever relased, by anyone, anywhere. And I sincerely don't mean to troll. That's simply what happens. Corporations will take 5+ years to make the switch, becuase they always have.




The problem here is in 2 parts, really: Compared to the past, the tools generally avaliable to people have greatly increased in power in the sense that 1 individual can reach out faster and more effectively to more individuals than ever before. After all, what are Blogs except one person who decides to write whatever they feel and post it to the web for others to read.

The second part is equally simple: People continue to spread lies and FUD, even after being corrected. i.e. Correct someone that "Yes, you *can* upgrade your Motherboard", and they'll shut up for a little bit. Then come back in another thread with the exact same false claim. Or perhaps someone corrects him that early performance differences were due to poorly optimized drivers - He'll be quiet for a little bit. Then in another thread start the same argument again.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495,00.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/default.asp



Or maybe the topic of the day is acceptance. The numerical fact is that Vista's acceptance rates actually *exceed* what XP achieved... Yet people absolutely refuse to accept that. They'll come back, screaming that the world has rejected it.


PC World - "...even Gartner, that prophet of Windows' doom, forecasts that Vista will be more popular at the end of this year than XP was at a similar juncture -- with 28% of the PC operating system installed base worldwide, vs. 22% for XP at the end of 2003"

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150263-1/vista_may_still_have_its_day.html




At the end of the day, it is, and always has been, the exact same hysteria, lies, and asinine predictions as occurred when XP was released. Let's head back a generation, shall we?

Intel upgrades to Windows 2000 six months after Windows XP was released:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2002/01/10/intel-chooses-w2k-over-winxp

Sluggish corporate adoption of Windows XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2002/0,4814,74276,00.html


Windows XP Slow To Take Hold "...Less than 10 percent of Microsoft's installed base has upgraded to Windows XP since its release last October. That matches a 2001 Gartner prediction that nearly 75 percent of all corporate PCs would still be running Windows 95, 98 or NT Workstation by the end of 2002...

http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18829228


Microsoft offers new licensing terms and other incentives to jump-start stalled corporate XP adoption:
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18821819


Three years after release, XP uptake still too slow:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39151481,00.htm?r=8

Four long years after XP release, more corporate desktops still using Windows 2000:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/XP-May-Catch-Up-to-Win-2000-by-Years-End




Blah blah blah blah - If you want to go back far enough, I'm sure Lucius argued day and night with Dukmerjian about why he'll never use one of those evil horses to pull his chariot when he had perfectly good slaves... Well guess what? Stuff changes.



All products, especially software, have life cycles which are determined by their makers and by the market. In this particular case, one maker has decided to finish one product off. That doesn't mean anyone has to stop using it - You just can't buy a new one any more. If you're that attached, save your stuff.