Save XP! - Page 6

Last message on previous page:

XP does it just fine.

Well I got around to looking at the links about DRM. I couldn't listen to the interview because those links were broken but I assume it's the same as the article since it's the same guy. I'm also guessing that by 95% accurate you mean that 95% of what he claims has at least some truth. For example the claims about content being blocked on certain outputs. This is true but there's two things you need to keep in mind. 1. it's optional for content providers to do so and 2. this has been around for a long time but is rarely used. I for example had a DVD decoder card with TV composite out in the late 90's. My TV didn't have composite inputs so I tried to run it through my VCR. The result was a scrambled picture. I was able to use a RF Modulator and it worked fine. Pretty much his article is a what if worst possible case scenario. The problem with doomsday predictions like this is that it's hard to make change when even people who mostly argree with you don't take you seriously.

The links work now, for some reason I was just getting dead links last night. Maybe they were having server issues, this seems to be a theme with this guy (read the first part of his article). I'll keep on reverberating that I don't want DRM, but another thing I forgot about Vista which may be a roundabout advantage of DRM is that it comes with built in DVD playback and DVD authoring. Like I mentioned before I use 1 of my PCs primarily for Media Center. The fact that I can just pop in a DVD and it will play without having to have some 3rd party DVD Decoder installed is great. Even with XP MCE you still needed one for DVD playpack (and sometimes for TV playback) and these things always seem to break due to Windows updates.

DRM doesn't allow DVD playback and authoring, but without it the MPAA wouldn't allow MS to include it for free in Vista. Part of the cost of buying DVD decoders and authoring software are royalties paid to the movie industry. If MS just included that software in Windows they would get sued by the MPAA and probably others for payment of those royalties. So DRM is the trade off. I also read a rebuttal of sorts to the DRM article you posted. One thing it pointed out that I previously hadn't known, or at least never really thought about, is that Intel requires HDCP compliance. So in order for MS to even sell a x86 OS it has to be HDCP compliant, or else risk being sued my Intel. So you better stop using Intel CPUs to. I assume AMD follows suit so your probably of SOL as far as a DRM free CPU, unless maybe VIA...

DRM in Vista was cracked within a month or two of it's release. You don't have to be smart to run the crack, so they are only screwing the honest consumer anyway.

That guy was too stupid to not publicize his theft on an open forum though.

where is microsofts competition? tell me that... tell it to me now and tell me what the numbers are and realize how big of an (((()))) you are... go ahead... do it. someone else already put up his personal experience numbers, go find a web site and copy a world wide spec sheet of how many people are running what OS and tell me you're not a loyalist for saying competition isn't good... who's going to make you do better if there's nobody there? tell me that! if you only knew! i know you're smarter than that, you have the conviction at least... just LEARN and stop and THINK for a second... C O M P E T I T I O N ! ! ! see... easy... it helps us all out... if you don't want to support it, then you might as well build a bomb shelter that will last you for the rest of your life... because without that one little C word that means so much... the world WOULD be in a nuclear holocaust... now think about that in relation the my previous "art" post... I don't think I have to spell it out to you, you can get it, i promise.

wth?

The Geek Squad has a reputation here as incompetent fools that only clueless old grannies would take their computers in to get fixed. Much of that is because several people on the forum own their own computer shops or work for one and groups like the Geek Squad kill business; the rest is that there are always a few real "durrr" mistakes that will come out of any group as large as them. So even if you are excellent at what you do and work there, you're lumped in with the worst of them.

The whole "Vista sucks" bit also has a lot of the bandwagon bit to it also. There are four main reasons why people actually dislike Vista:

1. It is an evolutionary release but was billed by Microsoft as being a revolutionary one. People expected something earth-shattering and instead got a jazzed-up version of Windows Server 2003 and were really PO'd about it.

2. The GUI and settings are arranged somewhat differently than in XP. This annoyed people who'd simply memorized absolute locations of things and didn't really know why they were located there in the first place (basically, they never really learned how to use the previous OS.)

3. Some drivers and programs that worked on XP do not work on Vista.

4. It does not run as fast on a low-end computer today as XP does due to increased hardware requirements.

These reasons largely do not hold much merit as to why to actively avoid getting Vista on a new computer. (Upgrading- that is a completely different story altogether.) The first argument completely fails to compare how Vista actually runs in comparison to XP, only how the shipping Vista compares to what MS had promised. The second argument is also pretty sketchy as somebody who understands computers will be able to use widely different modern GUIs with roughly the same efficiency. Sure, some GUIs are a little better for some people and some usage than others, but the argument is really "it's different, therefore it is bad!" That argument is primarily fed by a lack of mastery of how to use a computer than any serious shortcoming in the new GUI. The third argument is the only one with real merit, but it isn't Microsoft's fault as many say. And dependent on what exactly isn't working, you may be better off replacing the old software or device. It's the fault of third-party application and driver developers to make new drivers and updated programs. The fourth argument has some merit as well, but it doesn't really have a leg to stand on any more as a system powerful enough to run Vista well today is rather inexpensive. All you need is 2 GB RAM and a 7200 rpm HDD- any modern CPU will suffice. The 2 GB RAM was expensive when Vista first came out but now it's about $30-40.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons to avoid Vista:

1. Cost- if and only if you are building your own machine. Depending on which version of Vista you want to run, buying a license can cost up to $400. OEM versions of the most popular version are $139. However, your (legal) alternative to Vista here would not be XP but one of the open-source UNIX-type OSes like Linux, Solaris, or BSD as XP costs about the same as Vista. Note that if you buy an OEM machine, Vista and XP generally cost the same and you often cannot get a machine without an OS or a non-Windows OS and pay much if any less for it so this is a moot point.

2. Activation, license keys, and DRM. These can be either no problem or a huge PITA, depending on if the WGA server works correctly or not and how frequently you upgrade or reinstall the OS on your machine. But these are in Windows XP as well- you have to use Windows 2000 or one of the open-source UNIX-type OSes to not have to deal with this.

3. Incompatibility with a certain piece of hardware or software that is mission-critical, extremely expensive to replace, custom, or otherwise not able to be reasonably upgraded. This isn't MS's fault but it might present a major malfunction in using the new OS.

Wasn't that easy with my printer, had to manually run the windows driver update. Still not hard though.

EDIT: Seriously, anyone who says Vista is the ME of this decade obviously never used ME and/or Vista.

We have plenty of small hardware places in Downunder, and most have 0 customer service, bad prices, and dodgy practices. There are a few ok ones, but not many. There aren't any large places like newegg or Best Buy here either.

5.50/hr! If you got that here you would need to be no older than 12 or you'd be getting below award rates. I really don't trust any of the businesses here, it's a gamble every time you place an order online with a new place.

Don't use beta software !

Definition: Microsoft Beta - Everything before SP3.

Or maybe they just trying to make a living with it. I have two network MFP's (printer / copier / scanner), one color / one b&w that cost me $16,000 and $11,000. Am I supposed to go out and replace them cause Vista came out ?

But why would anyone who makes money off their computer upgrade to a new OS, taking the box outta service for a day, user gonna waste a day or two 'setting it up" to their liking, getting familiar with it....3 days lost time and then you still go slower than you did before ?

There is no rush to go to Vista, just because MS is dropping XP production it does not mean the support will be dropped as well. Win 98 was supported all the way up to July 06 if i remember correctly before MS pulled the plug.

1. Well....depends on what definition you use.....are we talking the original press release Vista or we talking what finally got out the door. The original Vista with the new file system for example was a major thing.....what finally went on sale 2 years later was a different thing altogether....essentially the equivalent of XP's SP2 security fixes with a "theme pack" thrown in. Not to mention the fact that the security fixes mean little if you use 3rd party programs instead.

2. Change which improves the way we work is one thing. Change for the sake of change, or change which actually slows us down is another. Here's two examples.

Why did we go from File Manager in Windows 3.1 with two windows to a single window with Windows explorer ? .....sure makes cut and pasting files from one location to anther a PITA .

When MS stole the taskbar idea from Mijenix (who in turn stole it from HP's dashboard) why didn't they bring any of its usefullness....like multiple virtual screens. Why do I have to hit start / programs before drilling down into program groups...why the extra 2 steps ?

3. Yes and MS can't be wholly excused here. A major part of this problem is not vendor laziness but a fundamental change in the way windows provides hardware access...a change necessitated by fundamental security issues with the windows code base.

4. It does not run as fast as XP does on a ANY computer today due to increased hardware requirements and increased number of background services running. Yes machines at 1 GB and below are crippled in Vista but even at 2 GB and more, XP is still faster than Vista.

I am gonna add a a few more:

You mentioned Authentication and DRM as being around since XP but Vista does bring this to newer and higher heights.

Vista still has not helped the user,a s promised, with the ongoing pain of Windows maintenance - policing all the stuff that runs when the computer starts, getting rid of unwanted programs, keeping the machine from slowing down over time, and so on. Those everyday tasks are still a drag in Vista....this should have been addressed.

UAC has caused peeps no end of frustration to the point where 95% of people are just turning it off.

The problem with Vista shares with every other Windows release is that it doesn't provide a wall between the OS and other programs. With it's registry model, stuffing everything in C:\program files , C:\Windows\Commonfiles, C:\Windows\system32 etc....you simply can't separate the programs from the OS. Each new program / driver must insert bits of code into OS's basic structure. Now that's what malware wants to do so how does Vista tell who's bad and who's good ? It was successful at helping stop the bad, but like with spam filters, it's going to invariably result in "false positives".

So when Vista attempts to do more than XP to protect itself from intrusions by developers and bad guys, Vista essentially introduced widespread compatibility issues while also inflating Vista's appetite for memory.

This is #1 in the list of the often-used arguments. The Vista that MS promised in 2004 is simply that- a promise, vaporware. What you and I and everybody else actually has in digital form is the shipping version. It may be a disappointment compared to what it was supposed to be, but if you are going to argue technical merits of a piece of software, you have to look at the hard copy in front of you. MS not delivering what was promised is an argument against trusting, investing in, or giving future business Microsoft on principle and not an argument against Vista itself.

The rationale for the single window in Windows Explorer was supposedly to have coherence between the new file manager and the new-to-most-people-then Internet Explorer with the "Back," "Forward," etc. buttons and the all-directory-traversal-in-a-single-window ("browser window" ) behavior. Also IIRC there wasn't a folder tree view in Windows 3.1 with the two panes, so traversing the filesystem was slower than going through the folder tree. I also seem to remember that entering a subdirectory would pop up a new window- correct me if I am wrong but it's been a LONG time since I've ever used a Windows 3.1 machine and my memory may be a little off. I primarily used straight DOS and the occasional Apple or early Macintosh at school. But Windows Explorer has had the single-pane behavior since Windows 95 and I don't see how this is relevant in a discussion about XP vs. Vista as both OSes have the same behavior. I can see it in a discussion about Windows Explorer versus other file managers such as KDE Konqueror (it can do multi-pane very well, plus tabs- it might be your cup of tea) but not here.

The first implementation of the typical taskbar is Acorn RISC Machines' Arthur OS in 1987 (if Wiki isn't full of it.) And you can do virtual screens on Windows by getting Microsoft's Virtual Desktop Manager power toy (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx) I personally use it on my notebook and while it's not nearly as nice as what's available on X11, particularly if Compiz does the virtual desktops, it is acceptable. The MSVDM control sits in the taskbar and gives you access to 4 virtual desktops. But again, no MS OS has ever had natively-built-in virtual desktop support so this doesn't really make sense in an XP vs. Vista argument. I think you're really making an argument about MS OSes or at least MS window managers versus other window managers on other OSes.

Of course there are security and other issues with the Windows code base- as there is with any OS's code base: Windows, OS X, Linux, Solaris, BSD UNIX, AIX, DOS, NetWare, OS/2, etc. MS may have more issues than some but everybody has them as OSes are written by people and people cannot make anything truly foolproof. It would be absolutely ridiculous to NOT improve on known flaws or patch security issues in the code base just to preserve compatibility with every last program and driver out there. And actually, backwards compatibility on Microsoft operating systems is probably better than on most others out there. Other OSes, particularly the free *nixes, have terrible backwards compatibility. You're lucky if a dynamically-linked GUI program you compiled two years ago will even run on an up-to-date system today due to the very rapid pace of API/ABI development and almost no consideration for backwards compatibility.

Vista has more DRM as related to playback of music and videos but all you have to do is not use Windows Media Player (which is still full of DRM and can give you trouble no matter what version of Windows it runs on) and you've gotten around dealing with it. I don't see much of a difference between a fully updated Vista's activation/WGA DRM and Windows XP's. Sure, Windows XP RTM didn't have WGA and thus was a lot less of a pain in the butt to deal with but it still has activation to deal with. Only Windows 2000 and earlier, Mac OS (PPC) and the free *nixes don't have to deal with any of that stuff.

Again, this is argument #1- a promise, not an actual shipping feature. Anyway, Vista's version of Windows Update is a little easier to use as it will update more than just the Windows OS- it will get Office and a few other things IIRC. Sure, it's not anywhere near a *nix package manager which can update EVERYTHING but it's a little better than XP.

How many times do you actually see the UAC prompt once you have the OS and your need-to-have software installed? Personally, I only see it once after I start up as I have RMclock set to start on boot. That's it, unless there happens to be a new Windows update. You will see it a bit when you are installing programs and doing your initial settings tweaking but then most people leave their computers' settings and programs alone for the most part as they are using their computer and not goofing with it. It's very much the same pattern as somebody using any other OS with a limited user account such as one of the *nixes. You have to type the root password in a few times when you are getting things set up but then almost never have to do it. It's certainly better than the alternative of always running as root/administrator and giving any process running under your account access to everything. That was a big deal with Windows security and now MS is finally doing something to change that huge problem.

That's what the limited user accounts and UAC tries to do- put a wall between what the OS can do and what other (user) programs can do. It doesn't work too well if you disable it and let any arbitrary process have access to anywhere in the system.

First of all, the registry is a big database of configuration information, not directories like C:\Program Files, C:\WINDOWS, etc. Yes, it sucks but it has been around since well before XP and doesn't factor into an XP vs. Vista argument.

All OSes have to modify things in system folders if a program is to be installed for all users on a system. Also, most OSes will install libraries and such to system folders even for a single-user install of a program so that other programs can use the functionality of that program or simply know that it is installed. Yes, it is possible to do an install of a program for a single user and never touch a system folder or file, but it will only be useful for that one user and neither the OS nor any other programs will be aware of its presence. It will also need to have statically-linked libraries as to not need to install any libraries that may not be in the system folders (else it would have to put them there). Statically linking the same libraries into several different programs takes up more disk space than putting one copy of that library in the system folders and it also means that if one of the libraries has a security issue, then ALL of the statically-linked programs has to be completely updated instead of just replacing the vulnerable library.

That's where UAC comes in. It pops up a box for *YOU* to see and judge what's bad and good if anything wants to write to a system folder. That way, your intelligence determines the false positive and false negative rate instead of the OS.


By the way, most of your issues you bring up seem to be more with Windows in general instead of Vista specifically. Perhaps you would do well to investigate other OSes and see if one of them fits your needs and wants better than Windows does.

No discussion of "satisfaction" can be made unless one considers the question "Did it meet expectations ?" The fact is many many people's expectations were not met so they are down on it. And yes, it's not only what was envisioned years ago but what was advertised when it was released....it has not lived up to its post release advertising.

It was given as an example of a "change for the sake of change" ...these were changes which MS adopted or incorporated which decreased productivity rather than improved upon it based upon what was known or available before it. If you are going to take the taskbar idea and make it the basis of your UI, then why not include the more expedient features ? Why can I start any program on my machine with max of two mouse movements where the Windows Taskbar just gets me to Start / Programs ....that's the best they can do after 14 years ????

What changes are in Vista that actually improve the way things are done ? What is quicker and faster ? How many "clicks" do we save ?

>It would be absolutely ridiculous to NOT improve on known flaws or patch security issues in the code base just to preserve compatibility with every last program and driver out there.<

I think the impression given by most developers is that fixes and kludges are two different things. Like the recent lawsuits and broohaha about airport security....where peeps have had their laptops taken a year ago and are still waiting to get them back. Does anyone actually think that them confiscating laptops or detaining people at airports while they copy entire hard drives is actually going to catch a real terrorist or kiddie porn vendor ? Of course not, why take stuff across on ya laptop when ya can just e-mail it to yaself and download it to ya laptop using the airports wifi after you went thru customs.

Is Vista any more secure than an XP system with good 3rd party AV and malware / spyware protection ? If you agree and say no, then the follow up question is how did all these developers manage to make their programs work with these more effective 3rd party tools in place ?

That's just "Microsoft Update" which is available for any currently supported OS.

I think the more relevant question is "How many people haven't turned it off already by the time they have finished setting up their boxes ?" In a business environment people wanna get things done....a machine arrives on someone's desk, they want, and their boss wants, them to be productive immediately.....the corporate computer user "bills out" anywhere from $60 - $450 an hour. The guy who does 1st level Tech Support in Redmond who just completed his 2 week training course bills out at what these days ? Last I called it was for NT4 and it was $180 /. hour. Struggling trying to figure out how to get past these prompts is just too frustrating when people have deadlines and productivity quotas. That's why in most corporate settings, they are just simply running as administrator all the time just so they don't have to deal with it. Probably most "plan to" take a look at it when they get settled in bit when people go around auditing, a year later, it's still turned off.

>First of all, the registry is a big database of configuration information, not directories like C:\Program Files, C:\WINDOWS, etc. Yes, it sucks but it has been around since well before XP and doesn't factor into an XP vs. Vista argument. <

It does to two extents:

1. Again the matter of expectations......the expectation and advertised promise of "more secure", "more reliable" has not been realized because the impression is that nothing has changed.

2. Vista is everything XP was and more in this respect.....more frustration, more headaches....

Yes XP had activation but the number of reported problems per 1,000 users is much higher with Vista. Once you got in XO, you were reasonable safe and 'done"....Vista on the other hand has had people logging in and suddenly finding themselves "locked out". Again, XP had problems, Vista has had much more problems in this respect so it is certainly relevant in an XP versus Vista discussion. Your argument is akin to saying "Home run hitting is not an issue when comparing Alex Rodriguez and Jose Reyes at short stop because they both hit home runs last year". Well A-Rod had 54, Reyes had 12.....I think the difference is the significance not whether or not they ever hit one.

Yes XP had a registry but Vistas is bigger and it has more services running. Directories are certainly an issue as when an uninstall fails it's a 3 page manual uninstall procedure with a series of:

1) Manual registry edits / deletions from at least 2 and sometimes more Hkey areas.
2) Delete the [Program Name] directory
3) Delete the [common files\program name] directory
4) Delete these files from C:\ Windows\system32\
5) And then there's the fun of removing driver files which every time you manually delete it, it gets restored from the cache.

Because Vista has more programs with problems these registry and files all over the place these issues are bigger issues in Vista than they were in XP.

270 million PC's were sold in 2007.....less than 100 million came with Vista. Almost 2 outta 3 people are opting out of the current MS OS. Forums are filled with threads asking:

- "My computer came with Vista, how do I get a copy of XP from my vendor ?"
- "I just built a new machine with Vista, can I use the XP CD from my old, machine (now disassembled for spare parts) on my ne wbox ?

But Vista's main problem is best characterized by the song from "Annnie get your Gun"....

"Anything you can do I can can do slower".....

There's nothing of any value to the great majority of users that XP can't do.
Just about everything that Vista can do, XP can do faster.

Vista has prefetch which is merely smoke and mirrors. It's a cross between sticking something in your startup folder and running a batch file at a certain time of day. It preloads parts of programs in advance so they "appear" to load faster. First initiated when they stuffed IE into the OS, parts of IE were loaded at boot to make it appear that IE loaded faster. Then we had the various "suitestart" thingies that preloaded parts of our office suites with the same goal in mind. problem is they don't load any faster, they just take a head start when you aren't looking. Ina ddition, having that stuff loaded sucks system resources so that running anything else is burdened by resources allocated to programs you aren't running. Again what did MS give us ? ....the illusion of speed, not the actual speed.

What do the various user groups have to put in the pros and cons column

L33t gamer Dude:

Vista Pros:
I can play Halo 3
I will be able to show my friends cool aero interface

Cons:
My status in the gaming community will drop as my fps rates will shrink by 12%.
I need to spend $400 more in hardware to get same performance as I would under XP.

Joe Corporate:
Pros:
If we elected to stop using more effective 3rd party products (which we ain't gonna do), then our basic systems would be more secure

Cons:
Systems will be slower
Will lose couple of days of productivity per user while they "explore" and familiarize with new OS.
Will have to buy all new utilities....Partition Magic site license now useless to us for example.
Half of our network printers have no Vista drivers.
Does it work with our mobile e-mail and data push applications ?

We all might have differing views as to the significance of each "Con", but where's the "Pros" to offset the Cons ? Win2k gave us USB and Hot Docking ? Vista gives us ? My hope was that Vista's ability to take advantage of hybrid drives would be the feature that make sit worth having. But hybrids have basically been a dud so far so no hope there as yet.

I dont understand why you want to hold onto xp so badly. Its 7 years old now almost. If you have a processor that was 7 years old it would be horribly out of date, sure you can update it but the code is still 7 years old. Vista is a improvement over windows xp in some respects but it requires updated hardware and a quicker processor. over the 2 operating systems I perfer to use vista if the computer isnt cheap, but if im fixing the computer I perfer windows xp because its easier to get repairs done. Windows me is nothing like windows vista. Windows me was based off of the 9x code and it was implimented very badly which caused it to be unstable it was removed less then a year of being on the shelves. Windows vista will be around for a few years and its kernal will live in the next operating system windows 7. Plus where the hell are you getting these facts of sp1 makes the system run 20% slower my computer ran way faster with sp1 then it did with standard. I work in office enviroments and yes there isnt a large number of people who have adopted to vista because software developers lag behind and companies dont want to adopt to something that isnt going to work hell I have clients still using windows 95 because there specific program will only run on that. Your right vistas registry is bigger because the there is alot more items attached to vista then there was with windows xp. If the program is 12gb istead of 2 id expect the registry to grow a bit. The point of windows vista is to be more secured without having to rely on 3rd party vendors for security. I mean by that logic I can say my metro is as secure as a bmw because ive added lowjack. I mean lets put this with a easy example of cars. If you took a toyota from 1989 it would be basic man doors maybe ac and a little 4 pop but it gets 45 mpg. Take a new toyota of the same model its got ac power everything big stereo and so on. What all that does is make the car heavier so toyota needs to add a bigger engine to make the car feel just as fast but now it gets 35 mpg rather then 45. If given the choise im sure 95% of you would take the lesser performing car because it has more features with it rather then just the bare basics. Windows is no diffrent all the new added features take a little power to run because the surveys microsoft put out said thats what people wanted. Do we really need all that stuff no but I do like the fact that I have it.

XP is definately NOT faster ALL of the time. Anyone here actually run both on a machine that doesn't suck???

Q6600 @ 3.2
4GB PC800 @ 800
2 x 7200.10 320GB Stripe on ICH9R
320MB 8800GTS
P35 Gigabyte (P35C-DS3R)

In Vista 64 my machine fully boots after loading RAID BIOS in less than 8 seconds. It also shuts down just as quick. XP takes closer to 20 for the same on the same hardware.

I agree Vista runs like poo with less then 3GB RAM and anything less than a Raptor or a Stripe. But why buy fast CPUs just to cheap out on RAM and drives?

Besides, ALL my games work, MAME works, JNES works, DOSBOX works, ZSNES works. All my videos and music play fine. WTF is DRM? Where is it? You guys on glue? You been ripping into WMA and trying to play the same tracks on a different box again? News flash!!!! DRM ONLY APPLIES TO WMA! Media Player will let you play ANYTHING, assuming that you haven't been ripping into WMA specifically with content protection enabled on another PC.

DRM is just FUD from anti-Vista/anti-MS zealots.

I've been of XP for years. All my PCs run them and they will so long as they are running. When I build PCs, they will have XP in them. I've worked with Vista with no complaints but I'm running an XP household. As long as XP runs, I'll use it. Vista is pretty but only if you put the money into for the specs. I'm just not there yet.

Looks like there will be no CrossFireX support for XP.
See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/0 [...] _leak_out/

We haven't had any NT4 boxes in many years, but we do still have a couple running Win 95 due to applications that won't run on XP, or 2003. We have over 6,000 desktops and laptops company wide, and adopted XP about 12 months after it was released. Our data center has over 500 servers running 2003, and 3 running Linux. We also have an IBM S390, 5 AIX servers, a couple MPE, and 15 SUN servers. Both XP, and 2003 Server have proven to be extremely reliable. The Linux servers seem to crash pretty often considering they account for less than 1% of hardware. One of the biggest problems with Vista is that it is not compatible with many core applications we use. This alone will prevent it from ever being considered. With the move from NT4 to 2000, and then to XP, each time there was a huge increase in reliability and functionality. Vista is a giant step backwards in both these respects, but I suppose one advantage is that people can find out how their system rates compared to Vista's standards.

Also he mentioned catalyst 8.03 Charlie strikes again.

The sad part is that many people can't read something like that and pick out what's fact and what is just plain biased opinion.

If they are phasing out XP then wouldn't businesses be forced to use Vista? The phasing out might not effect businesses with mass license already but it would effect new people who wish to buy licenses esp. small businesses.

MSFT is in business to sell software. Many corporations didn't see an immediate reason to upgrade to XP either, but it became a proven OS with many advantages. Those advantages don't exist with Vista, and in fact more issues have presented themselves over the last year that make Vista bad news for everyone. I earned my MCSE back in 2001, and have made my living in this business for many years. I can tell you from experience that Vista is going to be around about as long as ME was. The release date for Windows 7 has been moved up to fall of 2009, and it will be around for a long time much the way that XP has. Again, the notion that DX10 is Vista only is a scam. XP is fully capable of displaying the same quality graphics, and the Crysis hack proves it. I expect you will see DX10 incorporated into XP sometime this year regardless of MS official support or not. There are too many people that don't like Vista, and it's hurting the PC gaming industry too.

Mainstream support for XP ends in April 2009, but extended support (patches and such) ends in April 2014.