[rtfire1]

only two versions of Xp thats news to me we got: home, corp, pro, xp pro 64, xp media 2004, xp media 2005, and a few more that I just don't want to look up. Like other people have said if it aint broke why are you fixing it!! that being said I have an amd ath 2000 with 1 gig ram runing vista home at the low end setting the pc works great I would have left xpm 2005 on the system but that hd was fried and i like vista. I had to force some xp drivers on it but it has not crashed and works fine. my laptop is much faster but thats intel and core 2 duo.

[coastie65]

Hi, actually there is a third version of XP.........Media Center Edition. coastie

[shanedr]

Which only proves that every new version of Windows needs at least the first service pack if not only the second before it becomes fully usable. The reason we like XP is it was usable before SP1.
Now MS is talking about a new version again. If they would just learn to hold off new releases until they have the bugs worked out. The problem is MS expects the consumer to reveal the bugs "and" pay premium price at the same time. We actually need a federal law that would result in a 50% rebate if problems appeared in the first year and a half of the release of a new version of any software.
Why should the consumer pay to troubleshoot software for the manufacturer?

[coastie65]

Actually, I think that is what Beta testing is all about, but they sure came up short when it came to Vi$ta. coastie65

[butlerwm]

In one of my responses to the PCWorld article "Dear Microsoft: Thanks for the Help, Linux" (June 26, 2008) I wrote:
> {quote:title=I hate to be the bearer of sad tiding but a two "day" old computer with less than a gigabyte of RAM (make that 1.5 GB with shared video RAM) and/or a CPU of less than 2 GHz still runs like a rock through mud with Vista. It's the reason most major PC makers insisted on continuing to offer XP on their low-end [and mid-range] systems and why they began offering Linux. Vista made their systems look like bricks because of the "unreasonable" ... hardware requirements of the OS. A PC with 512 MB RAM and loaded with XP can still be deemed a speedy computer. The same system loaded with Vista is a doorstop.}{quote}
[/quote]
I stand by that comment. If all we (the end users) wanted from a new operating system were bolt-on visual and/or security enhancements, we can do that very well with XP. In an era of ever faster hardware (dual and quad core CPUs, processing speeds above the 3 GHz mark, SATA and solid state hard drives, and graphic subsystems beyond our imagination) the only thing Vista does is sap the life out of our machines to sate its own appetite for more power. The result, rather than a step forward in performance or functionality, is a step (some times two or three steps) backward. As I write this, my open applications in Vista are IE and the Windows Live Mail client. My memory usage at present is 1.3 GB of system RAM. On the same PC (I have a triple boot system with XP, Vista, and Linux and 3 GB of RAM) running Windows, I can perform the same tasks and be using fewer than 500 MB of system RAM. Oh yes, and that with the much vaunted Aero and all other visual enhancements turned off. What that tells me is that Vista is a dog with flees. The difference is the overhead of the OS.
I've used Vista as my day-to-day OS in my work environment (as an IT staffer) ever since it was released. Lack of experience is not the basis of my disdain for Vista. Rather my experience in its use and the trouble shooting of it for myself and others are the cause of my dislike.
An intra-version update of XP would have served the user every bit as well as a new OS version. However, the ROI for Microsoft would have been less. And the bottom line is that software versions are released to insure the continued profits of the software maker; not for the purpose of enhancing the user experience. We have only to look at the changes to Word in the Office 2007 bundle to understand that same philosophy. We (end users) didn't need a new and improved word processing program. After all if you want to do desktop publishing buy a program for that purpose. But the sheep who have become the buying public are so easily led to purchase the newest, shinny toy that they jump at the opportunity of a solution in search of a problem.
Software publishers, in general (not just Microsoft) figured out long ago that as long as they make new versions of their programs there will be more than enough people willing to "rush out" and buy them that it keeps the profits rolling in and the investors happy. That's why we're stuck with Vista... not because it's better than XP. Because... hmm... it ain't.

[Number3124]

I don't understand M$'s choice to stop selling XP. It sells better than Vi$ta and arguably it runs better too. If M$ is here to make money then they should keep selling XP because there's a demand for it and they're job is to fill the demand for OSs, in this case WinXP.
One more point is that I think on aesthetic and usability levels XP's interface IS better than Vi$ta's.

[coastie65]

Hey number, As far as i know, if the retailer has XP in stock after the 30th, then they can and will sell it until the remaining inventory is gone. coastie

[aliciak38]

MIcrosoft is desperate to get something out there!! They lost stock, maybe going bankrupt, that is why they made this pathetic version of windows-guess who-VISTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will never buy Vista, you could not pay me to do so. I have a GAteway that is 5 years old with XP Pro, it cost $3,550.00 and well worth it. I want to buy 1 more Laptop with XP, and XP only on it. Not with Vista and included a cd for windows upgrade. How rediculios is that? If anyone knows of a Vendor or company who make or carry a XP Laptop, loaded of course, please let me know. Money-no problem.

[rgeiken]

I used XP Professional for many years, and for a lot of that time it seemed to work pretty good.I held off on Vista until I got a new computer, and then made sure it had a quad processor, (Q6600), and 4 gig of ram. Initially it was fairly unstable, and this was about 6 months after release. For the past 6 months it has been running smoothly. I have SP1 installed on both my Desktop and Laptop, and they both perform great. XP had it's problems too, and I sure had a lot of shut down problems over the years. I think that Vista has been performing very very well since the start of 2008. I am glad that I have it installed, and would have no desire to return to XP. I am a home user, so don't face the same problems as a business user. If you have an older computer, stick with XP. If you buy a new one, have Vista installed. One of the first things that you might want to do, is remove UAC and all reference to it. It is too annoying to allow to operate, and Microsoft has made it possible to disable it. Then it will run like XP on Steroids. You probably wouldn't want to drive in the mountains with a 7 or 8 year old 4 cylinder car, and putting Vista on a 4 or 5 year old computer with a slower single core processor and 1 gig of ram or less would probably be an exercise in Futility. With powerful computers becoming more affordable, that is probably the course of action that will give you the most "Bang for the Buck"!!!

[manmtn]

I have been using computers since the CMP OS system (and even before that, when you programmed "desktop" computers in Octal language with switches!), and have used vitrually all the Windows versions from DOS through XP (I've heard too many horror stories to go near VISTA! X-( ) The most stable of the offerings by Bill Gate's "Money Machine" was Windows NT, with the next being Windows 2000. Of the five computers I have in my home/business, I have either Windows XP or Windows 2000 on each. I will no longer tolerate Microsoft's ploy to force you to buy new software every few years - when they quite servicing XP (if not sooner), I'll transfer all my computers to a form of Linux (probably UBUNTU). Unfortunately, the hardware manufacturers are now all pushing VISTA. I usually build up my own machines from scratch, loading what I want NOT what Microsoft wants! Recently, I bought (to save time) a new Dell (my originaly, first "purchased" PC was a Dell Pentium I with a 90 mHz. CPU, it's STILL operating!).

I was surprised to found (this is true with most manufactueres now), that this new Dell had NO 3-1/2 in. floppy drive (as there was a cable and connector on the mother board, I quickly added one). It is unfortunate that the manufacturers are letting Microsoft dictate what to make. And a lot of the new hardware is NOT compatiable with older versions of Windows. Just think of all the CPU time wasted putting those pretty little pictures of folders "flying through the air to the Recycle Bin", etc., as compared to the old DOS system. Today's computers are made for idiots, and the users are being forceably spoon fed what Microsoft wants! Thanks for letting me vent my frustration with Microsoft. :^0

[coastie65]

:D Vent Away. I think you'll find more than a few in your corner on this, myself included. I have in fact bought several copies of XP in various flavors for when I get ready to do a build. I'm not having anyone dictate what I should run in my computer. I WILL run what I want. coastie65

[rodrigodiaz]

That was a wise choice if you are willing to use XP in future. :D

[coastie65]

:D I'm willing to use XP until the cows come home, or until they come out with something that is better than Vista and will give me a reason to change. coastie65

[butlerwm]

> {quote:title=manmtn wrote: }{quote}I usually build up my own machines from scratch, loading what I want NOT what Microsoft wants! Recently, I bought (to save time) a new Dell ....
[/quote]
My current, primary home PC was also a newly purchased Dell (it's a year old this month). Like manmtn, I normally build my machines from components, but anymore the parts cost more than a pre-built machine. So my reasoning was one of cost rather than time. Additionally, I purchased one of Dell's "n" series machine because they come with no installed OS (they're only available on the small business side of the site). And promptly install XP (32 bit Professional), Vista (32 bit Ultimate) and 64 bit Linux (for a triple-boot), added another 2 GB of RAM, an additional internal hard drive, FireWire, and a tuner card. While it would never be considered a powerhouse by Vista standards, the 64 bit, dual-core, 2 GHz CPU and mid-range nVidia GPU server my purposes. I've done all the benchmarks I care to do, comparing XP to Vista and in every category XP wins.
The computer I have my sites on is a Mac Pro (probably as a Christmas present for myself). With it's ability to hold 32 GB of RAM, room for 4 TB of internal storage space, built-in FireWire, four (count'em, four) PCIe expansion slots, and up to two quad-core CPUs, it should server me well into the next decade. But, even then I'll "cling" (as the XP nay-sayers call it) to XP. Because even with all that horsepower XP still runs between 33 and 50 times more efficiently than Vista. So when push comes to shove, I can render video faster, render 3D images faster, run calculations on larger spreadsheets faster, and if I so desire to use a multi-thousand dollar machine to play games, I can even do that faster with XP than with Vista.
The day may come when software vendors stop making the programs I need so they will run under XP. When that happens, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Windows 7 will be a more efficient endeavour than has been Vista. Otherwise I may have to just abandon the Windows side of the computer and live with Mac OS instead.
Oh... and have you heard, the next version of Mac OS (Snow Leopard) is slated to improve on the elements of speed and stability rather than just slapping some lipstick on the old OS and hoping no one notices it's still just a pig. Seems at least Apple understand the needs of the end user.

[Tenchu98]

I am sorry if this offends anyone, but XP SUCKED. Further more, Vista is not flawed, it's users are. The biggest problem windows has had against it, is it's popularity. I am tired of hearing about the issues, and comparing it to inferior os's like mac and linux.(notice no caps)
I will try to clear a few things up for the confused.

1) Linux and Mac have been more secure, because no one uses them. You wouldn't knock over a bank that only had one client.

2) Every OS has compatibility issues when it releases. However, XP and Vista both had compatibility mode built in. They can both run software dating back to Windows 95. And yes there are a few proprietary programs that won't work.

3) XP is 6 years old, when most OS's are lucky to make it 3.

4) XP has more than 10 times the wholes vista does.

Just keep these things in mind before you begin complaining. And on a final note don't be afraid of having to learn something.

[MacTroll]

Windows's failings are not just the fault of Microsoft - it's partly the the responsibility of the whole user base. Example:

"Redmond doesn't do beautiful, and it doesn't do elegantly efficient. . . . What Windows has always achieved is bureaucratic competence.

It makes lots of devices from lots of different manufacturers work together reasonably well. You'll encounter problems occasionally, and you won't always love the way it works, but generally it gets the job done."

Fabulous! Would you regard this as acceptable quality from your car or TV manufacturer? Your medical care provider? If your threshold of satisfaction is this low then, really, you deserve everything you get from Microsoft.

[Antiapplekid]

Vista is a great os you just need a good computer to run it so stop complaining and get a good computer GIVE VISTA A CHANCE

[markww]

BILL GATES WAS nothing more than A GREEDY PERSON and did not care about anyone but himself.You can see that in WINDOWS. I don't care which version, HE BUILT A MONEY MACHINE for his pocket and left EVERY CUSTOMER VULNERABLE he should be PROSECUTED FOR FRAUD Becuase of all the problems with his product. XP WINDOWS I don't care which program he could have MADE IT AS STABLE AS LINUX . But NO he left it so open with HAZARDS and UN SECURITY That People's LIVES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED from EVERY CRIMINAL OUT THERE.
MARK

[leegc]

Used XP for years before getting a Vista notebook. Bad move. Sold it after a couple of months for a 15" Mac Pro. Best decision I've ever made. Got a copy of XP Home running in parallel with OSX for those times that I need to run Windows apps. Best of both worlds. Good riddance Vista!

[piyushsingh]

markww said:

BILL GATES WAS nothing more than A GREEDY PERSON and did not care about anyone but himself.You can see that in WINDOWS. I don't care which version, HE BUILT A MONEY MACHINE for his pocket and left EVERY CUSTOMER VULNERABLE he should be PROSECUTED FOR FRAUD Becuase of all the problems with his product. XP WINDOWS I don't care which program he could have MADE IT AS STABLE AS LINUX . But NO he left it so open with HAZARDS and UN SECURITY That People's LIVES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED from EVERY CRIMINAL OUT THERE.
MARK

Another critic of a successful person . I really dont understand why so many people hate Mr. Gates , they use msft products everywhere, they use the "$" sign in place of "s" msft in their posts and they bash windows all the time and they keep on using WINDOWS. If you dont like their products , then dont use it. And STOP ranting.