100,000 Customers Tell Microsoft to Save XP - HotHardware
100,000 Customers Tell Microsoft to Save XP

100,000 Customers Tell Microsoft to Save XP

Many, many people have said that Windows XP is just fine, and while Vista's great (DX10 comes to mind), it's not necessary for most.  Can an outcry of public sentiment save XP?

Windows Vista was supposed to be a shot in the arm for Microsoft, which had gone five years without a new desktop operating system. It hasn't worked out that way. Instead, Vista sales have been slower than XP's (when adjusted for market size) and there's been a distinct lack of passion for the new OS. In Vista's first year, InfoWorld detected a deep anxiety over Vista among technologists and consumers alike. We decided to do something about it, launching a petition drive to ask Microsoft to keep selling XP after the planned June 30 end-of-sales date. Nine weeks after that Jan. 14 launch, more than 100,000 customers worldwide have signed up. And that doesn't count parallel efforts by our colleagues in Germany and Canada.

Does anyone remember those old Steve Martin skits on SNL, when he would make a great proposal and go into great detail, saying "shouldn't we do such and such great thing!?" and then follow up with "Naaaaaaah."  Well, can anyone see what Microsoft is likely to say?
0
+ -

 microsoft really cant complain its money in there pockect after all

0
+ -

So here's an interesting tidbit for you guys to ponder. I took two public IP addresses and loaded Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista Ultimate on two computers and attached them to the two public IP addresses. I put no protection on either computer (anti-virus, additional firewall's, etc.). The Windows XP computer was compromised within 17 minutes, the Vista computer has been running for 11 days without being hacked in any way. They are coinciding IP addresses, just in case you thought it might be the IP addresses were too far apart for a sniffer to locate the openings.

0
+ -

who would run xp without a firewall anyways and theres more to it than just that such as driver compatiblity etc but im glad your one of the vista success stories and i hope you continue to have good luck with vista but for me im sticking with xp

0
+ -

Actually as an IT department tech I see computers come in daily from people's homes. I think maybe once in 3 years I've seen someone using something other than the built in windows firewall. I also see a ton of computers that are 3-4 years old that they have never had their virus subscriptions renewed, they just assumed they were still 'protected' as they always have been. Everyone on these forums has more knowledge than to let that happen, but in a real world scenario, not so much..

0
+ -

1nteljunki3:
I think maybe once in 3 years I've seen someone using something other than the built in windows firewall.

I don't like 3rd party firewalls at all -- they are way to intrusive IMO. Windows' firewall does a fine job at blocking unknown connections/ports unless 1)the user made an exception or 2)the user hit "allow" to open the port/socket

Another thing is that it seems like when a firewall (3rd party) gets to a certain age it likes to corrupt (main Norton and McAfree I've had experiences with) and with that corruption by its coding the firewall locks EVERYTHING down so the user is left with a crippled computer that was crippled by a not-even-working firewall.

HW firewalls are fine....as they need to be setup by the user for the user(s) so for the most part you know EXACTLY what its doing. I guess maybe like you say I have the knowledge-base to allow me to keep clean but for everyday users when they don't know how to even setup their firewall what is the point of throwing one on your system that often seems to cause more harm than good in many cases...offer them good active a/v or a/s protection instead.

0
+ -

I generally use a hardware firewall, seems like the software firewalls eventually clamp down so hard they have to be uninstalled and reloaded.  That and their so obtrusive that they interfere with computeing, have to be adjusted, programs have to be tuned for them.

 

Keeping a good clone though in case some one or some thing does get through.

 

For Vista it's still dual boot for me.  Needs more maturity. 

0
+ -

Any copies of XP that Microsoft were to sell from here on out would be pure profit. Even after taking that into account I still don't foresee them aquiescing to the wishes of these XP proponents. For them to do that would be admitting to the shortcomings of Vista. I knew Vista wasn't the most popular OS Microsoft has graced us with, but I had no idea XP was preferred to this extent.

0
+ -

Vista is a joke.  Even among people who no little about computers, most are disappointed when they use it.  It has benefits, but it just feels too incomplete.  I would like to get a few of Vista's features integrated into XP instead of a whole OS upgrade.  Kind of like Apple OSX upgrades.  But alas, Microsoft is neither wise nor skillful anymore it seems. 

0
+ -

It will in fact be interesting to see whatMS is going to do about it -- 100k is nothing to shake a fist at after all; if nothing else perhaps it will spark MS to work harder on Vista more quickly to try and hush the outcry.....although much damage is already done (one people have their minds made it its nearly impossible to change them)

0
+ -

didnt they already extend the date once already 

0
+ -

 I agree Vista isn't the right choice.....I'd be one of those 100,0000. Personally, XP 64 bit doesn't everything I need it to and does it faster then Vista...Especially for my workstation uses. Vista isn't really a bad os...but it does have problems that still need to be worked out.

0
+ -

at the moment,the best OS from MS remains Windows Xp

0
+ -

I disagree with all of the above statements.  Post SP1 I would hands down use Vista over XP.  People aren't seeing the big picture yet, and with most home users it's unlikely that they will ever see the true improvements in Vista over XP.  The rollout was simple, the imaging of computers to a centralized server has cut my overhead by a ton just by having similar machines that I can pop into someone's workstation when a hardware problem occurs.  I had to setup an XP machine the other day just for legacy support so that I was able to test applications and realized how clunky everything was in XP with rollouts of updates to applications.

0
+ -

1nteljunki3:

I disagree with all of the above statements.  Post SP1 I would hands down use Vista over XP.  People aren't seeing the big picture yet, and with most home users it's unlikely that they will ever see the true improvements in Vista over XP.  The rollout was simple, the imaging of computers to a centralized server has cut my overhead by a ton just by having similar machines that I can pop into someone's workstation when a hardware problem occurs.  I had to setup an XP machine the other day just for legacy support so that I was able to test applications and realized how clunky everything was in XP with rollouts of updates to applications.

 

Well..At least the barrage of older applications that I used for my video uses work in XP compared to vista =P...I'm not saying Vista is a bad operating system..but it does have it's flaws. If modified and corrected..it'd be a great os..But there are still kinks to work out, and the fact that there is no form of emulation for older applications is flat out wrong. XP had it's problems at the start, and with time Vista will be sorted out as well..But there are some other leaps that aren't being made that really shoudl....Such as? At least apple ran Mac os 9 within Mas osx in order to make older programs compatible...But we haven't gotten that kind of dedicated from Microsoft on Vista for any sort of older emulation....

 Overall though, Vista does have it's strengths. But when it comes to my workstation uses, those strengths aren't there for me.

0
+ -

try using windows vista sp1 for 2,3 weeks and then switch to xp,on a fresh install.You will be surprised how xp sp2 runs after using vista for a little period of time

0
+ -

I think Vista is ok. I don't see many problems with it except that it is slower and uses up a bunch of memory. I would say that it would be excellent if Microsoft would integrate DX10 into XP, then I would not be at Vista. That was basicly the only reason why I started using Vista. lol Although I know Microsoft will not do that becuse they only look at the money they will get so they will want the peopel to buy Vista to get a use of DX10.

0
+ -

Right, I think that the fact that Vista is slower is unforgivable.  Same systems, one XP one Vista compared in games, and the Vista one performs a little slower.  This is even if they are both DX9.  Why not stick with XP and gain a few frames-per-second?  As for non-games, I cannot imagine how any random app would be faster on Vista.  What happened to optimization instead of bloating? 

0
+ -

You guys have to remember though, newer OSs are built around "modern" hardware.

If you did what CoolZone said and fresh installed XP on a machine with a P4 2.4Ghz, 256MB of ram (top end in the early XP days) and compared it to a system with a Core 2 Duo and 2GB of ram I am guessing that they would be very similiar in terms of general "speed"

0
+ -

You guys have to remember though, newer OSs are built around "modern" hardware. If you did what CoolZone said and fresh installed XP on a machine with a P4 2.4Ghz, 256MB of ram (top end in the early XP days) and compared it to a Vista system with a Core 2 Duo and 2GB of ram I am guessing that they would be very similiar in terms of general "speed"

Obviously a machine that was optimized to run with 256/512MB of Ram is going to be lightening fast when 2GB are actually installed....if this is the logic why not just use 98SE with modern gaming rigs?

(MY EDIT BUTTON WASN'T WORKING)

0
+ -

good point didnt think of that 

0
+ -

tried it on my old p4 computer,with 2gb ram,got the slow results as I mentioned some responses before.Tried it also on my friend's computer with 4gb ram and 3ghz E6300,you can tell the difference from 2 miles away on how the computer runs on xp and how it runs on vista sp1

0
+ -

 i have afriendwho just bought windows server edition looks pretty nice as a os but still prefer xp over anything right now

0
+ -

some people say server edition is 20% faster than Vista,even if it has the same kernel

0
+ -

it was pretty  quick quicker than the vista he had dual booted and slower than the xp he had before 

0
+ -

it does not have a lot of bloatware that Vista has

1 2 Next
Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: