Microsoft to stop selling Windows XP today

Monday, June 30, 2008
Microsoft to stop selling Windows XP today

REDMOND, Wash. -- Microsoft Corp. is scheduled to stop selling its Windows XP operating system to retailers and major computer makers Monday, despite protests from a slice of PC users who don't want to be forced into using XP's successor, Vista.

Once computers loaded with XP have been cleared from the inventory of PC makers such as Dell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co., consumers who can't live without the old operating system on their new machine will have to buy Vista Ultimate or Vista Business and then legally "downgrade" to XP.

Microsoft will still allow smaller mom-and-pop PC builder shops to buy XP for resale through the end of January. A version of XP will also remain available for ultra-low-cost PCs such as the Asus Eee PC.

A group of vocal computer users who rallied around a "Save XP" petition posted on the industry news site InfoWorld had been clamoring for Microsoft to keep selling XP until its next operating system, Windows 7, is available. The software maker has said it expects to release Windows 7 sometime in 2009.

Last week, Microsoft said it would provide full technical support for six-year-old Windows XP through 2009, and limited support through 2014.

That Sucks!



Tired of technology.


Let's have simplier computers, VHS Tapes, Records and Tapes and bigger cell phones

Booooo! Vista sucks!

Anyone ever tried Linux? I need a new computer and I'm about half tempted to try it.

catbox_9 wrote:

Anyone ever tried Linux? I need a new computer and I'm about half tempted to try it.

Why not trying apple? Three friend of mine just bought an iMac (and are very satisfied). I only heard bad things about Vista. I don't have to switch at the moment, so i think i'll wait for the next Microsoft OS "Windows 7" that will be launched in 2010 as i heard. A lot of huge companys do not switch to Vista either (Daimler and even the Microsoft partner Intel are just two examples).

I have Vista, its really not as bad as you guys say it is. Its still a computer, so its definitely better than nothing.

I have Vista because my laptop came with it. I don't really like it, but it works.

Vista stinks compared to xp. Stupid Microsoft.

I had XP on my old computer, I liked it better.

swiss_tiger wrote:

Why not trying apple?

I've always been so anti-Mac it'd make me a hypocrite to join with them now. That and their computers cost twice as much as a non-Mac.

gdennis59 wrote:

I have Vista, its really not as bad as you guys say it is. Its still a computer, so its definitely better than nothing.

"Not as bad" and "better than nothing" aren't all that reassuring. There was nothing wrong with XP. If I'm going to replace something that has no problems whatsoever, I don't want to replace it with something that is "better than nothing" or "not as bad as [they] say".

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

XP is loaded with problems too. Memory leaks (where when you shut a program, windows does not release the memory for another program) that cause you to have to reboot to reclaim it and speed up the computer again. Most people don't know this happens if they shut down their computer daily or have not purchased a program that triggers this. I had a tech program installed that monitored this, and you could see it happen. Microsoft never was able to fix this in XP. It was one of the reasons they developed Vista. A clean install of Vista, on a new machine has worked much better in this aspect. (PS - I monitor this on Vista also with one of the available widgets!) Also Vista can be set to look and act like XP if you don't like the new interface.

I am keeping my computer until it don't work anymore

catbox_9 wrote:

swiss_tiger wrote:

Why not trying apple?

I've always been so anti-Mac it'd make me a hypocrite to join with them now. That and their computers cost twice as much as a non-Mac.

Ditto.

I don't blame you.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

XP is loaded with problems too. Memory leaks...

That is my one complaint with XP. I've never been big on shutting computers down (I like wasting energy and what not) so I encounter that problem rather frequently. Electronics are most likely to fail when you turn them on - that's why I don't like to turn them off. Think about something simple like a light bulb. How many times have you turned one on, it flashed, and then died? Now think about how many times you were in a room with the lights on and all the sudden they went out. That's much less common, in fact I can't recall that ever happening.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Also Vista can be set to look and act like XP if you don't like the new interface.

Hmm....I've only used Vista once and didn't notice this feature. I absolutely HATE the new interface, it's dreadful. Then again, I don't particularly care for the XP start menu and have mine set up for the "classic" look.

Another concern with Vista, I am under the impression that lots of software is incompatible with Vista. I don't follow this type of stuff all that closely and that was quite some time ago I heard that, is this still a major issue?

I really want to buy a new laptop since my screen is gone and using a monitor defeats the purpose of a laptop. I don't like the idea of spending a couple hundred dollars to purchase out of date software to run on my computer so I pretty much will have to use Vista or hold out until they replace it with something else.

catbox_9 wrote:

Another concern with Vista, I am under the
impression that lots of software is incompatible with Vista. I don't
follow this type of stuff all that closely and that was quite some time
ago I heard that, is this still a major issue?

Vista is a true 32-bit operating system (also 64-bit available for the new 64-bit processors) and it can not run older DOS based programs. I have found about 98% of the programs built for Windows XP WILL RUN GREAT on a Vista system. I have found a few that needed updated with new (free) patches, to make them work, but most are just fine.

As to turning off computers, they are the same as any electronic device. It is the heating up and cooling down that causes failure. (just like a light bulb) I have normally kept my systems on unless there is a bad storm or the computer is slowing down, due to the memory leaks. The hotter a computer runs, the more important it is to keep them on. Just make sure you have standby activated to save power, and the cooling fans work ok.

Laptops should be turned off when being moved so keep from experiencing hard drive head crashes. But most run very cool today. My first two had several fans that ran to keep the video and processors cool. My last two don't even have fans anymore. They just have air vents.

As to light bulb heat... If anyone has taken a trip to Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum, in Dearborn, MI. Check out the Edison lab. They have light bulbs that they do not turn off and they last forever!

I don't do much, if anything, with DOS but that is still a concern for some reason.

I ought to give my sister's computer another try - it has Vista.

Yeah, I always shut my laptop down when moving it....unless I'm taking it across the room in which case I shut it (which puts it on standby) and then movie it.

I want to go to Greenfield Village! We almost went last time I was in MI and supposedly we almost go every time I go to MI but I've never been

You must insist on going, it is fantastic. I've been there at least 10 times in my life. It has been 20 years since I was last there and they have added so much more to both the Museum and Village.

See their website at: http://www.thehenryford.org/

That settles it - next time I'm in Michigan I'm going. My stupid family never want to go to Detroit or near Detroit. They only live an hour or so away in Grand Blanc (suburb of Flint). I mean I could see them not wanting to take me over the Mackinac Bridge (which I've never done ) as that's quite far away, but Detroit is right there!

I'm beginning to think that shutting down my laptop every night is not such a good idea.

I never thought of it before. I thought, as long as I'm not using it why have it on?

TigerLily wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

swiss_tiger wrote:

Why not trying apple?

I've always been so anti-Mac it'd make me a hypocrite to join with them now. That and their computers cost twice as much as a non-Mac.

Ditto.

Macs drive me crazy cause they seem so "opposite" of PC's in everything you do. My college and the school system I used to sub for mostly had Macs and I wanted to scream!

Macs were okay back in the 1940s, but times have changed. They're so user-friendly that they suck. Let's keep this brief and list just one lousy Mac feature that proves they suck:
Their mice have just one button. I press the right button on my mouse at least 33% of the time. Eliminating that button is foolish.

gdennis59 wrote:

I have Vista, its really not as bad as you guys say it is. Its still a computer, so its definitely better than nothing.

You're right. It's not really THAT bad, but I loved my XP more than I love Vista. if I don't turn it off at least once every other day my keyboard stops working, my tab and delete buttons don't work, or it won't let my close out of any of my windows. With XP I would only have to shut it down at least once a week. But you're right, it is still a computer better than nothing.

AND in order to use Microsoft Word and stuff we had to get extra RAM installed, there goes 50 bucks.

mrsrabelo wrote:

AND in order to use Microsoft Word and stuff we had to get extra RAM installed, there goes 50 bucks.

That reminds me of another question regarding memory use. My laptop currently has 1.5 GB of RAM. It came with 0.5 GB or RAM and that was actually good enough. Most computers with Vista seem to have 2 GB of RAM which sounds great and all but here's my question:
Would a computer running Vista with 512 MB of RAM run about the same as a computer running XP on 512 MB of RAM or would it be significantly worse? Is 2GB of RAM on Vista going to deliver better performance than say 1.5 GB of RAM on XP?

catbox_9 wrote:

mrsrabelo wrote:

AND in order to use Microsoft Word and stuff we had to get extra RAM installed, there goes 50 bucks.

That reminds me of another question regarding memory use. My laptop currently has 1.5 GB of RAM. It came with 0.5 GB or RAM and that was actually good enough. Most computers with Vista seem to have 2 GB of RAM which sounds great and all but here's my question:
Would a computer running Vista with 512 MB of RAM run about the same as a computer running XP on 512 MB of RAM or would it be significantly worse? Is 2GB of RAM on Vista going to deliver better performance than say 1.5 GB of RAM on XP?

See I'm not 100% sure, but the guys said that in order to run multiple programs at once we would need more RAM. I'm not sure how much more we got but it doesn't really give me too many problems.

mrsrabelo wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

mrsrabelo wrote:

AND in order to use Microsoft Word and stuff we had to get extra RAM installed, there goes 50 bucks.

That reminds me of another question regarding memory use. My laptop currently has 1.5 GB of RAM. It came with 0.5 GB or RAM and that was actually good enough. Most computers with Vista seem to have 2 GB of RAM which sounds great and all but here's my question:
Would a computer running Vista with 512 MB of RAM run about the same as a computer running XP on 512 MB of RAM or would it be significantly worse? Is 2GB of RAM on Vista going to deliver better performance than say 1.5 GB of RAM on XP?

See I'm not 100% sure, but the guys said that in order to run multiple programs at once we would need more RAM. I'm not sure how much more we got but it doesn't really give me too many problems.

Yeah, that's what RAM does. GoGetEm probably can answer my question

The more ram the better. It is the easiest way to speed it up! I recommend at least 2 MB RAM on all xp and vista machines

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

The more ram the better. It is the easiest way to speed it up! I recommend at least 2 MB RAM on all xp and vista machines

2 GB?! I've run XP with 528 MB before - not now, but I have. I guess my question is basically does Vista require more RAM than XP? I mean the 2GB sounds great and all but if Vista is more RAM-intensive it's not as great as it sounds at first glance.

catbox_9 wrote:

mrsrabelo wrote:

AND in order to use Microsoft Word and stuff we had to get extra RAM installed, there goes 50 bucks.

That reminds me of another question regarding memory use. My laptop currently has 1.5 GB of RAM. It came with 0.5 GB or RAM and that was actually good enough. Most computers with Vista seem to have 2 GB of RAM which sounds great and all but here's my question:
Would a computer running Vista with 512 MB of RAM run about the same as a computer running XP on 512 MB of RAM or would it be significantly worse? Is 2GB of RAM on Vista going to deliver better performance than say 1.5 GB of RAM on XP?

I would say worse. Vista is a resource hog. So is XP but not as bad. I ran XP on 512 and it was bad, but totally fine with 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtZKp8_jOHo