Last message on previous page:
Like most people, I'll switch to Vista eventually, not because I want to, but eventually I'll have to. The fact of the matter is, there is STILL no compelling reason to switch. XP does everything I want, even on my 5 year old laptop, not to mention my 2 year old P-4, and my 1 year old core 2 duo systems. Perhaps I'll go with Vista on my new quad core build this summer, after SP1 comes out.

When XP came out, I continued to use 98 for about 2 years, while the bugs were worked out of XP. I'll end up doing the same with Vista, but only on new builds. Its simply not worth the added cost to upgrade my older systems, which run quite well with XP.

The one thing MS didnt do with Vista, is give me a reason to upgrade. DX-10 just does not do it, especially when there are STILL so few games that take full advantage of it, and even then, only bleeding edge systems can take advantage of the visuals. Add in the DRM issues with Vista, and the net gain is a negative incentive.

It seems to me, that MS produced a product without there being a NEED. All of the improvements (and there are some improvements) could easily have been incorporated into XP, without the massive costs put into Vista.

Once again the Vista fan boys come in justifying why they dont mind shelling out the cash for a new OP whenever M$ decides. I dont believe a Vista group hug was the reason for the OP starting this thread.

I have a fine computer with an operating system that I paid for. I believe that those who are resentful of Vista see it the same as I do. If it wasnt broken, then dont fix it.

And dont give me the crap about evolution with this Vista OP. I dont like anyone telling me what to put on my computer or telling me they aren't going to support it after I gave them my hard earned money.

EVOLUTION.......yeh, like a third eye.

I know 12 pages is a lot but please have the courtesy not to just jump in and make assumptions about what people are saying. Nobody has said that people should pay more money for Vista. I'm pretty sure I for one have said that I use Vista because I got it for free and XP would be the OS that costs me more. This is the same as anybody else who bought a new system with Vista not XP. Also the only reference to evolution (at least that I made) was not about the evolution of an OS, but real Evolution- if you don't believe in that then there is no point in discussing anything further.

True, but it's a double edged sword. XP is a fine OS by today's standards and Vista has pleny of room to improve. So while Vista isn't NEEDED, it's good that the two coexist so that we have both a developing OS and an established one. The longer the period of time between OSs the more difficult the transition will be (XP->Vista is the greatest for MS). Eventually XP WILL be outdated. Suppose MS had waited a few more years to release on OS and XP was then cleary outdate AND the new OS proved difficult to transition to. What a mess that would be.

Businesses would likely upgrade to Vista when:

All their software work (esp. CAD,etc)
PCs that can actually RUN Vista PERFECTLY becomes cheap
When MSFT improves their bloated code
When not upgrading is no longer an option

MS OS and software development is run by Bozo the Clown!

It is time to get rid of all the 32 bit OS's and force everyone to build programs in 64 bit. They did this during the change from 16 bit to 32 bit. Now is the time to give up this 32 bit nonsense.

What is the use of having a 64 bit CPU and a 32 bit OS?

All servers are being devoloped in 64 bit!

You make some good points, but I believe you miss some too. As you say XP is a fine OS by today's standards, and I believe that IT has plenty of room to improve, however, it is doubtful that it will be improved, beyond some security fixes, because MS wants to transition everyone to Vista. When XP came out, it offered MANY improvements over '98. Enhanced security, stability (eventually) and the biggie, 32 bit OS are just a few of the improvements offered by XP. The ONLY real carrot offered for Vista (32 bit) is DX-10, and even that, was not really supported by the game designers for over a year. The down sides of bloated code, intrusive, or at least agrivating DRM and "enhanced" security easily counter the improvements. Also, DX-10 COULD have been incorporated into XP. For most, the only thing Vista does is make their current system obsolete. It required twice the processor power, and twice the RAM to deliver the same performance.

Vista 64 bit certainly has the potential to offer some major improvements over XP once 64 bit becomes the norm, but forcing people to adopt Vista, simply because it is new, breeds a great deal of dis-satisfaction. Especially when the new kid was not ready for prime time. True, it has improved, maybe even to the point of being as good as XP, but how much better would XP have been, if they had devoted just some of the R&D resources of vista, into improving XP. The bottom line is, MS usually only sells one OS with each new system sold, or for that matter, built. I think the real reason they are pushing Vista so hard, is to make DRM mainstream. Certainly the hardware vendors like it too, since most systems that ran fine on XP, have to be upgraded or even replaced to run Vista.

Apples and oranges. Threads take tangents which may or may not have anything to do with the threas title. You are taking three different subjects are trying to combine them...and you are still getting it wrong.....and you still haven't checked the prices.

Someone made a comment about how much Vista Ultimate costs. I responded to that post. That has nothing to do with the cost of what XP Pro costs versus what the Vista upgrade from XP costs.

1. The point I was making with the Ultimate post is that MS upgrades are ridiculously priced and we've swallowed this bit where we are not MS customers if we had our OS preinstalled by someone else. To MS, if you has a copy of any OS on your computer you are not an "existing" customer, the guy who built ya puter is the MS customer....so you can't upgrade, you have to buy new. You can't even upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit of the same OS. Upgrading from Windows Home Premium OEM 32 bit to Windows Home Premium 64 bit retail even costs more than XP Pro. $250 is a lot to go from Windows XP to Windows Ultimate..... That might be the cost of you are crazy enough to buy from MS. But does anyone actually buy upgrades ? Lemme see, I can buy and upgrade license for $240.....or I can buy it as an OEM for $170 ?

Here's ones choices:

I have a retail copy of XP, I am eligible to buy retail version of Vista Ultimate for $240
I have a OEM copy of XP, I am eligible to buy retail version of Vista Ultimate for $350

Now those are two rather silly choices don't ya think when I could just buy a OEM copy of Ultimate for $170 ????

2. Vista Business is the equivalent upgrade path from Xp pro. If we were discussing how much an upgrade costs from an 8600GT to an 8800GT would you be quoting me 8800GTX's ? would you be quoting me prices in SLI ? Then why are we comparing the cost of the Windows Vista Ultimate with Windows XP Pro ? I get essentially 4 OS feature sets in the Ultimate package (Home Premium 32 / Business 32 / Home Premium 64 / Business 64) With XP pro, I only get one. They are not equivalent....they are not apples and apples.

3. On the machine I am typing from, OEM WinXP Pro cost me $145 / OEM Copy of Vista Business would have cost me $140. That clearly makes the equivalent version of Vista $5 cheaper than XP Pro.

Vista ultimate would have cost me $170....that's the equivalent of having XP Home, XP Pro and a bit of Media Center thrown in ..... and in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions. Price the six of those out for me, will ya, and tell me how much cheaper it is than $170. Heck just price out the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of any one of em and try to get under $170.

Windows Vista Ultimate (32 bit and 64 bit) = $170
Windows XP 32 + Windows XP 64 = $280

Even if I get the 64 bit version free, it's been a while but the math I learned in school tells me that $170 for the OS Set in Vista Ultimate is not "twice the cost" of even just one version of XP at $140.

I didn't copy it cause I agreed with it, I copied it because I was going to respond and computer crashed. I decided to download the Vista Upgrade Advisor and it crashed while I was doing the install. Apparently, when I "restored" my firefox session, it posted what I had typed so far.

What I was going to respond is.....if people are so resistant to change, why aren't they all still using Windows 3.1 ? Why, with each and every OS release before, have we seen people eating the hype and rushing out to get the new latest and greatest ? Why did it suddenly stop with Vista ?

Was there ever a save Win3.1 Campaign ? ....a save Win95 campaign ? .... s ave Win2k campaign ?

Interesting sidenote....the InfoWorld "Save XP" site is down

But there was a need....MS needed a cash infusion to pay for X-Box, Yahoo and all their other ventures ... not to mention Bill's retirement package !

Now if Vista did have all the goodies that were in the original plan, we'd have something there. But while they wasted development time taking out useful things (like defrag utility's analyze feature), adding DRM, adding security features that pale compared to free 3rd party equivalents and trying even more to make us use IE, WMP etc, instead of actually evolving to the next level, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Seven years to produce aero and something that can't compete with free 3rd party tools ?

Couldn't they just have beaten Checkpoint to the punch and bought ZoneLabs ?

SAVE XP SITE IS DOWN !

But seems to have generated lotta press....I like the 1st one

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23048937/
http://antivirus.about.com/b/2008/ [...] ows-xp.htm
http://www.computerworld.com.au/in [...] ;16;fpid;1

Here's MS comments:

"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.".....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."

Here's one that is also interesting:

"Globally we can confirm there have been over 100 million licenses sold and more than 42 million PCs now licensed under volume licensing agreements."

Volume licensing means that an XP purchase is recorded as a Vista sale and an unreported XP downgrade.

It was broke, thats why you need an anti-virus program. And I don't believe they fixed it, they just improved it.

not having patience to read through a 12 page thread, i ask this.
at what point does xp become abondon ware? it will no longer be sold or supported, so it does qualify. i know it's ms and they would fight it. seriously though everyone should fight to make it officially abandonware.

Has windows 95 (which is like 13 years old) become abandonware?

My post was in direct response to your post which was in response to a complaint about the price difference between XP Pro and Vista Ultimate. Why when somebody who agrees with your position made a direct compaison to the price of XP Pro and Vista Ultimate did you not correct/be little him?

Instead of pointing out that XP Pro to Business or Premium is cheaper and a closer equivelant you not only agreed but pointed out how the full version (of Ultimate presumably) is even more if you can't upgrade. When did I once say Vista Ultimate is the equivelant of XP Pro? Please show me where you read that somewhere. No, I was only going based on the price points that were being discussed on the same page of this thread by YOU. It's not apples and oranges when I was directing the comment at something you said. You were just looking to be an a$$ with you're obnoxious response. Which is the same reason I pointed out that you left part of my post in ours. It just makes it even funnier to learn that it was because your computer crashed, considering the topic of this thread.

i dont know, has it? seriously who would want it though? i'm sure there is someone out there hard core enough with enough old stuff laying around, but i'm talking with c2d and x2 systems.

it's tech and ms=wont happen in our lifetime. i still think they need to get called out on abandoning an os that permiates our lives.

if they no longer wish to deal with xp and want to move on, fine no prob. but you know they're going to keep battling piracy of it.

also how is it piracy if you no longer sell it? piracy indicates a loss, if you no longer sell it then you make nothing, hence no loss.

if they offered xp as freeware, they would kill linux almost overnight.
it would be thrown back to a hobby. ms would still make money, xp would become an intro to windows. it would then be up to ms to come up with new windows os that have features people want worthy of the high price of upgrading.

just a thought.