Regardless of Microsoft's choices to force Vista into our hands; I would rather head towards the open arms of Linux for my operating system with it's customisability and streamlined installs than head for a system which 'takes advantage' of current and new hardware by taking up as much system resources as possible.

...for me to upgrade to Vista. I have XP Pro, with ZoneAlarm and AVG running on it (*not* MS's firewall). The system WORKS and keeps me relatively safe from intrusion (ain't no such thing as a completely safe system... if YOU can access it, so can somebody else), except of course for MS's Genuine Advantage, spyware by any other name which you can't get rid of. (yes, spyware - it installs itself and does nothing beneficial for your system but instead "phones home" every so often to report your status to home-base... what else would you call it?)

So why would I upgrade to an OS whose sole claim to fame (so far as I can see) is that it has so much eye candy associated with it I'd need to fork out serious cash on new hardware? *Everything* that might have prompted me to upgrade was pulled out of the release and only the bling was left in (unless you got Home Basic, in which case you don't even have the bling).

So since MS can't persuade people to upgrade, they'll simply make sure they have no choice. And in 12 month's time, we'll hear what a success story Vista is based on sales figures.

Meanwhile, I'll be slowly converting my boxes to Linux as they age and buying OS-free hardware.

I already find very little need for Windows these days. With the expansion of web enabled applications, its getting easier and easier to avoid vendors and products that only work in a Windows environment.

The Europeans won't be happy about this....

Maybe another 500 M?

I have been saying this Windows 98 when they introduced XP. If Microsoft decides to quit selling XP, then it should then become public domain and FREE for all. This would lead to a couple of things. 1st - They would have to actual make a better and more secure OS as so you would not want XP. 2nd - Two things in one would happen next. Their public image would improve for FREE and they would kill off LINUX at the same time. Let's turn XP into Open Sauce. This would go a long way in 3rd world countries around the world. But first, they would have to build a better mouse trap ---

Mike in Louisiana

I'm taking into account:

-Fast

-Stable

-No bullshit visual effects. First to turn "off".

Classic "all the way"

-Only use highly specialized, third party, software (intensive graphics mostly, in my case)

Who works with Windows anyway?? It's an OS, nothing more.

Windows to play music?? Haha.

Windows to play video?? Whah...

HDTV?? Whahh 2x

Games?? Hahahahaha!!

What you aim for is the best and fastest hardware available, not the OS!!

I'll stick with XP....

surely by pulling XP when demand still exists is just going to motivate piracy, something that MS is supposedly trying to foil. As your other readers have noted, for those not willing to go the 'unlicensed' route then OSX or Linux become a growth market.

Very short sighted.

is for gaming, simple as that. Why oh why would I want to "upgrade" to an OS that eats pretty much ALL of my system resources just to make itself look shiny and new.

I was actually looking forward to Longhorn, I thought microsoft had got the message and woken up but what we ended up with is just another Windows ME, which even Microsoft doesn't like to admit ever exsisted.

All this is going to do is add CONSIDERABLY more pain and suffering to the corporate environment and to say the least, a LOT more expense. We (in the UK) already get thoroughly ripped off with the price of Vista, of which for the corporate market there are absolutely no compelling reasons to upgrade to, and lots of reasons to ignore.

Non-corporate edition XP is already a nightmare for support for SMEs, as wel have to suffer with the continual product activation woes, can't sensibly produce a single pre-loaded master image and use it for all new systems and this is before we get to managing the things from the server end. If we were to add Vista to this, we're talking about somewhat more expensive hardware, considerably more software and support costs and all this for an "OS" that's not even finished (in keeping with most of the corporate world, we run like the wind from version 1.0 of anything).

At least with prior versions of the OS, for example, windows 2000, we could purchase XP licences and install windows 2000 safe in the knowledge that we'd still be licenced... are we going to be able to do this with the farce and fud that is product activation? To make it worse, MS doesn't want to talk to us unless we tie ourselves into ludicrous licensing schemes which mandate regular updates.

Doesn't Apple do the same thing?

Has anyone thought of the environmental issues associsted with needing to upgrade hardware just because you're forced to purchase a new resource hungry OS?

Not just the landfill impact of throwing away old hardware but a faster machine generally means more electricity used.

Personally I'm still sticking with Win2k, never liked XP even when the (horrible) eye-candy GUI has been changed to 'classic' and I can't see myself jumping aboard the Vista boat anytime soon.

It will sell bucket loads, and pulling XP will make almost no dent on the market or ripple in the news.

Because it's superior? Don't be silly

Because of a more compelling marketing message? Possibly.

Because most sales of the OS are bootstrapped OEM versions sold to businesses and consumers without them really even being aware that an OS can be separate from the hardware? Absolutely.

The audience for this article (and retail OSes) are at the upper end of PC awareness, that bell curve has a long tail, and we are in it, and most of you are further along it than I am.

The only Linux that realistically could make the break is something like linspire where they make it a design goal to look like windows, and then only if they crack the OEM market in significant fashion.

Which by the way this is the best chance for in something like 15 years because:

a) it is technically good enough;

b) machines which were good enough for XP are still good enough for all the underlying computing, but not good enough for Aero

However there is still one very significant challenge for the home crowd - the crowd who make the most noise are the gamers - which means someone will have to have a linux port of DX10 IF games come to support it wholesale, which seems like a pretty tall order to me. Otherwise the gamers will continue to say 'vista=latest and greatest' and their families will follow.

Business on the other hand is a steady and slow migration, which is likely to continue, and will modestly speed up thanks to Aero.

Having said all that - it will not happen in 12 months

I have been pondering and wondering the following.

Why Windows? What do I actually use this OS for?

Well work, gaming, playing movies / music, Internet etc...

Now lets be a little more pragmatic

I have a dual core 64bit processor, but running in 32bit mode due to the MS inability to bring a 64bit OS that is worth while.

Linux has been running 64bit for nearly 2 decades... so 1 point to Tux

Music, movies and work... well Linux can handle them all and probably more given the open source side of the OS itself. This allows Geeks from the world over to stay ontop of the new techs and methods.

Gaming, well that is an issue, and personally I love gaming a lot. It is my outlet after a 12 hour slog in the office, going onto a good tactical, strategic or generally running with a machine gun really rounds the day off (when the missus allows of course!!)

So in the Linux Vs Microsoft fight there is 1 item that is remaining in MS favor and that is gaming.

Now there are 2 solutions here.

1) Dual boot system

2) stop gaming

option 2 forget it, so option 1. Which in turn means that I will save money because.

I won't need an anti-virus on the games machine. Install take backup, if it doing something weird, wipe and re-instate the backup, bob's your uncle.

No need to get office... I already use Openoffice and I am EXTREMELY happy with it. it is a lot faster then MS and can handle 10Mb+ logfiles without crying or eating all my resource.

So in conclusion looking at things logically, Linux is the way to go. Now you need to navigate the hot bed that are all the distros, but try Ubuntu to get your hand in, or just look around.

MS you are no long in the main running for the monopoly, thank you for all the stuff, but i'm off to Linux, I have tested Vista and found it seriously lacking in a LOT of areas

So Vista is out of the question for me - it's not a gaming platform (dismal and buggy performance). Linux is not any more interesting on that point. Yes, I know Linux has Quake 4, but that's not what I play. I know somebody is making an emulator package to run Windows games, but apart from the fact that it doesn't work as well as native support (and is quirky depending on the game), I heard that the product is subject to a monthly subscription. Sorry, but I won't pay again (and again and . . ) to play something I already paid for.

To cut it short, XP is my only hope now and until all games only run on Vista. Personally, I find it a rather interesting situation. MS is shoving Vista with all its (considerable) might, and most everybody else is avoiding it like the plague. Who will really win out ? Will the OEM figures actually make a difference and in how much time ? If everybody who has an XP disk just formats and reinstalls, how long will it be before MS is forced to publicly accept that Vista is a flop ?

The suspense is killing me.

Ah but there is one thing I'd like to know : when XP is no longer sold, how will MS justify the activation process ? I mean, say I have to reinstall XP in two years time. It will be an obsolete product by then. Why should I have to activate it ? MS should publish an activation-killing patch of some kind. Will it ? Most probably not. Why not ask MS for how long does it intend to keep XP activation servers online ?

>Who works with Windows anyway?? It's an OS, nothing more.

Actually, it's not - like 'OS X' it's more a brand that covers an OS and set of development frameworks that are exclusive to that OS (Win32, WinFX/.NET 3/whatever they're calling it this week in the case of Windows, Carbon and Cocoa on the Mac).

Hence why your applications are tied to a specific operating system in a far more restrictive way than typical Unix apps.

Right now, of course, the number of applications built on top of Vista's API, other than those shipped by MS, is somewhere around zero. But it should allow the rapid development of some nice applications, and once the consumer PC upgrade cycle has got it widely deployed (36 months) you can expect to see them.

As for the rest of you, wittering about wasteful eye-candy - I bet you were all complaining about how much RAM colour graphics mode used to take up, and rue the day you were forced to move to a machine with a mouse attached.

"Why not ask MS for how long does it intend to keep XP activation servers online ?"

That is a darn good question from Pascal Monett.

I got a shiny new new 17" laptop with Vista pre-installed - as IT manager for an SME I thought I should test the new OS since it is increasingly difficult to source new boxes with XP-Pro.

BIG Mistake! - a lot of essential software won't work, or won't work properly, even my (brand new) mobile phone won't talk to vista (or vista-versa)

After a month of trying to live with it, I've come to the conclusion it's not worth the hassle - it is actually damaging my productivity - so I'm downloading all the XP drivers and down-grading the machine to XP-Pro.

It is going to cost business an awfull lot of money when XP is finally withdrawn - not just in OS costs, but in having to up-grade Office and a lot of other software to ensure compatibility.

Cedega, the "subscription" gaming-oriented Windows application-layer (not actually an emulator) for Linux isn't a subscription in the traditional sense. If you stop paying, your software doesn't stop working, you just don't get access to any new updates. Kinda like the commercial virus-checkers I guess, only still useful without updates.

Personally I don't play many recent games, so the totally-Free Wine (on which Cedega is based) is great for me. Diablo 2, Baldur's Gate, and Starcraft all work perfectly (even the no-CD patches!) on my Kubuntu laptop. Just because they're old, doesn't mean they're any worse games than they were when they were released - just ask the Koreans! :)

If I fancy a bit of shooting, there's always Tremulous, Nexuiz, or the Quake and Unreal Tournament games.

If you must play the latest and greatest games, get a console. ;)

every one has missed the point of how M$ counts "units shipped", so all the large corporates who have standard images still based on XP or even 2000 buy large numbers of new computers them re-image them before they are deployed. these will count as a sale of vista and the corporate has a vista license to use when they finally approve the agrade after thorough testing for compatibility with the apps they use.

These alone wil enable M$ to claim massive amounts of Vista Ultimate have been shipped regardless of any actually being in production

even home owners (i know a number) who have had so many problems with vista they have complained to the vendor any got a copy of the XP media to downgrade there OS even these will be counted as a sale of Vista as that is what the unit was shipped with.

So M$ will always win the stats war by being selective in how they present the figure (remember there are lies, damn lies and then there is statistics)

as to myself upgrading. NO CHANCE as there is nothing in vista i require, and office 2007 is likewise 2003 with loads of eyecandy but little else. we are runnig it at work and loads of performance issues

This, and not the irrelevances such as bundled free software, is what the EU and its USA equivalent should be focusing on when it takes action against microsoft for things like Abuse of Dominant Position.

It is high time that sellers of software, and especially those with a virtual monopoly, were forced to either maintain products for *TEN* years and/or FIVE years from the last sale (including the ability of existing users to buy further copies if they wish) *or* give the users a free upgrade to the current version if the seller wishes to withdraw support earlier.

It's still legal to exercise your downgrade rights for Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Ultimate OEM *only*. These have the rights to downgrade to Windows XP Professional until you're ready to move to Vista. Any XP Professional media/licenses can be used for this, including licenses belonging to other people - this will of course fail on installation, but Microsoft will (legally *must*!) let you activate it if you explain the situation. You may not dual boot the system using this feature.

It is also possible to crossgrade at will between 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista, even with an OEM license, as your license key is tied to a level of vista, not the architecture. Unless of course you have a Dell special that doesn't use license keys and is tied to your BIOS, you're probably out of luck..

NOBODY CARES.

That is all.

Not suprising - but in a home environment, who cares just pirate xp. It's better then getting the vista aids.

At work, stock up on those volume licenses *shrugs*

Sadly as long as you like rts or other strategy games you need windows, and the windows that gives best performance in this area is XP.

but yeah Vista = Me2

I was still using Windows 98 until last year, and it did ninety-nine percent of what I wanted. It still ran most games made up until a couple of years ago. Vista leaves me completely cold. Linux is not an alternative; I hate the cult-like aspects of its following, and I am not a computer enthusiast, I am a normal person. I suppose the Xbox is also a kind of alternative, as a computer-lite, but I am not interested in paying hundreds of pounds for a toy. Which also rules out Apple.

Nothing about Vista appeals to me. I would disable Aero immediately, I despise the idea of it, just as I have turned off the visual mumbo-jumbo of Windows XP. Aero isn't even included in the cheapest version of Vista, whcih is hardly a ringing endorsement of its indispensability. Vista's other USPs are all niche quirks (sideshow support) or unimpressive (a new version of Minesweeper) or things that I would turn off or not use. I have never had a problem with security. I use Mozilla/Seamonkey and OpenOffice, my email is ruthlessly filtered, and I distrust everything I see.

Of course Vista will take off. Every new PC bought from now on will be loaded with it, and nothing I have read about it seems disastrous enough to force the average customer to use Linux instead. Microsoft will try as hard as possible to force developers to make their games and applications Vista-only. But Vista leaves me cold. It reminds me of Windows 2000, or Windows 98 ME, except that this time Microsoft has spent a huge amount of time and money on it and cannot let it fail.

I see lots of comments about Linux, some quite misinformed but oh well. It's just this os you know; does what it's told to, is what you want it to be and that's it. people find is nice to have an os that does what you want. obviously you now have the responsibility of looking after your own support and the problems of not running games built for windows, but to be honest you were daft enough to buy windows games in the first place so there's no helping some people.

As for Windows Vista, I haven't used windows since windows 98 about 5 years ago, Windows XP was the last straw and I'm glad there are others that see that the windows world is not as great as purported.

Re: Cedgea, based on the old bsd licensed version of wine, a rather hurtful story.

The only reason to move to Vista is for Directx10 and no gaming company in there right mind is going to produce Vista only games (excluding M$ of course). Microsoft is either going to have to port Dx10 to XP, which lets face it is in all likeliness not impossible as they claim or really get there act together.

Timetable? I didn't know Microsoft knew the word timetable. And since when do they run on time? All these new fangled words they come up with.

MS OS's have always been bloated, you've always needed a new machine to run them - compare the system resources required to run XP as opposed to 2k or 98. Personally I think MS know that the OS is going to be buggy to the point of being virtually unusable until at least SP1. Therefore they can eat up all the system resources they like because, by the time the OS is stable enough and well supported enough to actually use, the hardware will have advanced to the point where it can easily cope with it.

As for the "We don't want no pixelcrack" crowd... well, that's rather missing the point. MS have actually done some decent work on the security model, they've resitricted access to the kernal and everything has to go through the security layer - it's not perfect and they aren't even trying to get people to use limited privilege accounts - but at least they're beginning to show the initial glimmerings of understanding when it comes to securing the PC a bit. It's still not a spot on the old *nix model however (refering back to the original Unix which has evolved into Linux, FreeBSD and OSX - kinda).

I'm no MS fanboy - I develop web-apps and I'd not touch an MS web-server with a long pointy stick - but it's horses for courses. You want a secure environment that can REALLY large numbers of requests, you go with FreeBSD.

If you want a secure system that can run internet and office type apps, then you can use a Mac, *nix or FreeBSD (with KDE or the Gnome). Hell, if you're really into your multimedia definately go with a Mac, the apps for movie/music editing as well as the old DTP and 3D design staples, are basically the best going.

You want a machine that has the highest level of software support; one that can do your multimedia (a bit), run office and internet software (as good as anyone else) AND play the latest and greatest games... you're going to need a Windows PC. Simple as that, Windows wins because it has the support and Vista WILL have, eventually, we'll just have to wait until SP1.

"Mike in Louisiana"

"Let's turn XP into Open Sauce."

Saucy suggestion :o)

/Rob

(I'll go get me coat).

MS Vista pioneers?

Remember...You can always tell who the MS pioneers are by the arrows in their back.

Away from my Vic 20 that is.

Go ahead, scoff your scoffings but I can do everything I need to do on my 3.5Kb beast of a machine. Any piece of software that needs more memory is BLOATWARE!

No, not in the same sense. You see, Apple has been upgrading OS X and early adopters had a bit of a rocky start having to move through 3 versions quite quickly, However, the versions haven't really lost compatibility with older versions. Also, Apple has upgraded its system with necessary features and upgraded speed. You see, I am running Tiger on a 7 year old Sawtooth G4, with perfectly reasonable speed, and nothing but a boost in RAM. I would LOVE to see anyone try to run windows vista on a machine more than a couple of years old at most, and be damned if anyone is going to run Ultimate on any machine but the latest and greatest. You see, Windows vista is pretty, and it's security annoyances are a decent start, but people really need to call Vista out for what it is, a mediocre cross grade designed to screw up compatibility just enough to force people to shell out the cash.

I expect what will happen is what happened with NT 4.0.

Loads of big customers put pressure on Microsoft, and they ended up extending support for the OS waaay beyond the date they tried to force everyone to upgrade by.

and as for the person who said "you were daft enough to buy windows games in the first place so there's no helping some people." it helps not at all to pour scorn on people who want to play a game that is only available on Windows. Read: most of them.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223#

If someone wants XP at home they will get it..

Why not... the EU is going to hammer them next year...

As for the suggestion that Micro$haft should keep the XP activation servers going or supply a tool that kills the activation process, you will probably be able to buy the tool off their website for $10.00 (and they will probably just rename WPA Kill after ripping it off)

"That will only accelerate my complete movement toward Linux."

We're still waiting. :-p

No, not in the same sense. You see, Apple has been upgrading OS X and early adopters had a bit of a rocky start having to move through 3 versions quite quickly, However, the versions haven't really lost compatibility with older versions. Also, Apple has upgraded its system with necessary features and upgraded speed. You see, I am running Tiger on a 7 year old Sawtooth G4, with perfectly reasonable speed, and nothing but a boost in RAM. I would LOVE to see anyone try to run windows vista on a machine more than a couple of years old at most, and be damned if anyone is going to run Ultimate on any machine but the latest and greatest. You see, Windows vista is pretty, and it's security annoyances are a decent start, but people really need to call Vista out for what it is, a mediocre cross grade designed to screw up compatibility just enough to force people to shell out the cash.

I have to agree, based on my experiences in support, with what Clay Garland says about trying to get OSX/XP running on old yet operational hardware.

OSX does, XP doesn't.

Right now I'm running the latest OSX on a six year old Powerbook, alongside OS 9 for a few very specific legacy applications. When 10.5 comes out ( and even 10.6 in a few years) I have no doubt I will be able to run them on this laptop. Could XP run on an equivalent Dell laptop this old? Maybe. Could Vista, two years from now? I'm willing to bet the answer is no.

And I've been able to still get support for Mac OS 9 out of Apple, even though its been officially binned for the last few years?

Given that hardware seems to have been getting not only faster but more reliable over the last decade, I'd like to see Microsoft be a little more proactive at not only maintaining support for older versions of Windows, but also optimizing new versions to be more inclusive of older equipment.

Companies don't want Vista. For a start, Vista is NOT compatible with SQL/Access - well only SQL 2005 and that with some major band-aid patching.

I personally know of at least 3 companies selling software that will NOT run on SQL 2000 or later, let alone SQL 2005! Furtharmore there is still no SBS2007? It seems that MS are abandoning businesses? Vista is clearly NOT for the business user.

The alternatives are either

a.Mac OSx -a possibility- or

b.Linux -an OS that most users will run a mile from due to it's complexity. Adding a pendrive then having to recompile the core to be able to use it is NOT an option for business users.

Some users have only just got used to XP - I see them EVERY DAY! Some scrape through working hours just about able to get their work done on a Windows machine. Adding Linux into the equation will just increase the suicide rate!

Remember, most people who post/read the comments here (Win/OSx/Linux users) will be pretty competent with a computer.

The average user in the "Real World" has a LOT less ability AND confidence than we do. They are going to be the real losers - not us.

Microsoft has AT LEAST 7 distribution channels for Windows. These are...

Enterprise (Volume license)

Tier-1 (Dell etc.)

OEM (Small system builders, Newegg)

Retail (Suckers)

Donor (Direct-ish sales to non-profits, schools, churches, etc at cost of media, handling, and mailing - this is $15 a copy last I looked)

Donor-OEM (A system-refurbisher buys a stack of licenses at the cost of mailing the stickers out and goes at it OEM style with restrictions on who they can give/sell systems to - a whole $5 a pop)

Pirate (Yarr. Seriously. They'd rather you steal it than use something else)

According to the article, they're only cutting Tier-1, OEM, and retail. You know, the copies that go to people with money, agility and resources to deal with problems.

I work at a system refurbisher, and we *JUST* gained the ability to buy Windows XP *THIS YEAR* - and we can only load it onto a system which has a surviving XP license sticker on it still (although we can upgrade Home to Pro without a care)

Next year, we should be losing that restriction and our customers can finally have what they've long wanted.

Oh, and we only just lost Win98 distribution rights this year, as well.

We'll be hanging onto 2000 for quite some time.....

And even then, you can still get 2000 OEM many places - just because the retailer can't buy more doesn't mean they don't have HUGE wads of them floating around. Volume license users can still buy additional licenses. It'll be the same for XP.

Stop your nonsensical panic, calls for Microsoft's head (sorry, but the decision to stop sales of a product doesn't mean dick. If Dell stops selling a certain machine and all your company runs is that machine - TOUGH, you either move, or have a varied environment.

The main issues with Vista relate to a total lack of QA on the system vendor's part - they don't really check to see if the kit can actually DEAL with Vista. My 3 year old laptop can run Vista plenty fine - if you ignore the parts that don't have drivers because it's 3 years old and doesn't even come close to the minimal specifications. They were spoiled by XP's unrelenting acceptance of every Win2000 driver ever written and didn't even bother testing.

Some hardware vendors have been taken completely by surprise by this whole Vista thing - and even more have been taken aback by the sheer AUDACITY of some users to install the 64bit version of the OS. They apparently weren't expecting Microsoft to not charge extra for it, or something.

But in the end, if you're worth a damn as an IT professional, you should find it easy to buy machines that will run whatever version of Vista you damn well desire - and run it well. It's even easier to build one - say the machine that sits on your desk and you play games on while you're pretending to be working.

And while I'm ranting like this, I may as well comment on the USELESSNESS of the Microsoft beta and RC program. NOBODY runs the betas or RCs to TEST the system, or provide feedback. Everyone seems to run it to post screenshots on the internet, or pretend to be better than somebody else. Is it any wonder that the end-product is buggy when Microsoft can't get any useful feedback out of much of the test-base? In software this complicated, you can't test every configuration in house.

Xp and office 2003 should do the job for years to come !

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON VISTA !

M$ wants to sell Windows for $3 to poor 3rd world countries and then turns around and says they would need to invest in the hardware to use the $3 OS. M$ gives the OS for $3 but the hardware for a few hundred $$$.

Now they DICTATE, not advertise, about Vista. Buy it OR ELSE.

How can you trust a company that doesn't trust you???

The fancier the toilet the easier to clog the pipes.

All MS has done is made a fancy toilet. It is a resource hog 1st and foremost. Security is still a distant 3rd.

It will take the industry atleast 3 years to adapt to Vista and create the needed infrastructure to support this OS. Very few programs are sold as 64bit and fewer are compatible with Vista.

In addition the hardware is still in its infancy trying to keep up with the Bloatware. I have yet to see a benefit to Vista other than the possible improvement to DirectX 10. Windows Media Player is still the joke of the industry and Messenger isnt much better.

The 1 year deadline is nothing more than putting a gun to the head of most software vendors saying "Write a program for Vista or you are done for."

A realistic deadline would have been 2010. That's more than enough time for the industry to convert to 64bits and multi-thread their software for multi core processors.