Microsoft Attacks its Biggest Enemy: Windows XP

This is kinda hilarious.

Microsoft starts a "Get the Facts" campaign...against itself

You've got to hand it to Microsoft. It hates ANYTHING and ANYONE that gets in its way of selling its software.

Including, apparently, itself.

In a very funny turn of events, Microsoft is out preaching to the industry that XP is a bloated expense hog, while svelte Vista will cure world hunger (or, at least, cost less), as Paul Krill notes:

According to research conducted by Wipro and GCR Custom Research, total cost of ownership for Windows XP is $4,407 annually, while Vista's cost is $3,802. The $4,407 figure was derived from costs of hardware, software, IT labor, and user costs....

Peculiarly, the study actually was based on XP usage and extrapolations based on Vista capabilities because there was not a substantial base of Vista clients in use yet when the study was done early in 2007....

Reducing vulnerabilities and utilizing security policies presents savings, noted Bill Barna, principal consultant at Wipro. Security savings alone were estimated at $55. "If you can reduce the number of core vulnerabilities, you can basically have the savings flow throughout the entire security model," Barna said.

Imagine the kind of savings you could get if you just stopped using Windows altogether! Few to no security issues. Less administration. Etc.

By the way, the study claims that switching to Vista saves on hardware costs. How could this possibly be, when everything I have ever read on Vista is that it is a resource hog? You spend more on hardware with Vista, not less.

Anyway, Microsoft must really be hurting if it has to resort to beating up on its most stable product in years. It's clearly desperate to get people to move off XP (you know, the Windows OS that actually has hardware/peripheral support, a lot of software written for it, needs a lighter hardware platform, etc.). Maybe the open-source crowd should just wait for Microsoft to beat itself into oblivion.

What next, a 'ditch Vista: get Vista SP1' campaign?!?! :laugh4:

While I like Vista, XP is still better, and it will remain like that.

But still, M$, come onn... :laugh4:

Considering companies pay the same yearly fee for whatever OS of MS they run... this report and the way it is handled doesn't make sense on several levels... the hardware requirements being the obvious lie... I wonder if anyone in MS had shown that this consultancy is obviously making up alot of its outcomes...

While I agree with you that some or all of the information is probably wrong, I think companies advertising their new products in a way that makes their older stuff look worse is not that new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

While I agree with you that some or all of the information is probably wrong, I think companies advertising their new products in a way that makes their older stuff look worse is not that new.

---

Deja vu - pretty much everything being said about Vista today was also being said about XP when it was released. e.g. "bloated", "resource hog" etc. It turned out that with all the cartoonish themes disabled, animated effects and 50% of the unnecessary, mostly networking related, services (that are mainly only of use to corporate users) disabled, XP was basically only a "Win2K update".

Back then XP was heavily criticised with many PC users "sticking with 2K/98SE". Now we find that "its most stable product in years... ...(you know, the Windows OS that actually has hardware/peripheral support, a lot of software written for it, needs a lighter hardware platform, etc.)". So after 2 service packs and a few years, XP went from insecure "bloatware" to "stable" and needing a "lighter platform".

I actually remember the same being said about Win98 and Win2k by users upgrading from Win95 and WinNT. In fact the system requirements for M$ OS have shown a fairly steep upward curve over the years, so this scenario is really nothing new.

Win95
Processor: 386DX or higher processor (486 recommended)
RAM: 4MB
Hard Drive Space: 50-55 MB
VGA or higher resolution (256-color SVGA recommended)

WinNT
Processor: 486 25MHz or faster
RAM:12MB
Hard Drive Space: 124MB
Video: VGA (Video Graphics Array)

Win98
Processor 486DX 66MHz or faster
RAM: 16M
Hard Drive Space: 140 MB - 255 MB
VGA or higher resolution (16-bit or 24-bit color SVGA recommended).

Win2K
Processor: Pentium-compatible 133MHz
RAM: 64MB
Hard Drive Space: 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650 MB of free space. (Additional free hard disk space is required if you are installing over a network.)

WinXP
Processor: Intel Pentium/Celeron family or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family 233MHz or faster
RAM: 128MB
Hard Drive Space: 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space

Vista
Processor: 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
RAM: 512 MB of system memory
Hard Drive Space: 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

Personally I won't bother with Vista, not because I hate M$ or prefer Linux, but mainly because I don't see it as having anything to offer me. I expect that is the main reason why sales have slumped. It has taken all these years for people to adjust to XP. What initially a shaky product that had it's fair share of bad press, has eventually matured enough, and is now seen as the old reliable by many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Deja vu - pretty much everything being said about Vista today was also being said about XP when it was released. e.g. "bloated", "resource hog" etc.

---

I did not have that experience. I was using Win2K at the time, and I asked my early-adopter friends what they thought of XP. Their reviews were universally positive. Even my favorite techno-curmudgeon, a real grumpy old geek, gave it a thumbs-up. Win2K with way better driver support was the general consensus.

So from my perspective, equating the releases rings false.

:laugh4: That's so funny.

Win XP > Vista.

Once they release a service pack or two, and i start hearing people give it all around good reviews, THEN i'll consider buying it. [No discussion of intent to do the forbidden dance, please.-- Lemur]

Until then, i'll stick with my nice stable XP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I did not have that experience. I was using Win2K at the time, and I asked my early-adopter friends what they thought of XP. Their reviews were universally positive. Even my favorite techno-curmudgeon, a real grumpy old geek, gave it a thumbs-up. Win2K with way better driver support was the general consensus.

So from my perspective, equating the releases rings false.

---

From your perspective that may be the case. Though from the perspective of many others it was clearly not so. Pre SP1 XP was bug ridden and full of holes, it took SP2 to really sort things out. Win2K and Win98 users were not happy to see XP hogging the CPU with it's fancy effects, themes service and other added bloat.

I agree with Caravel, i remember a lot of people complaining about XP back in the day. Now they behave like it always was the holy grail and will always be the holy grail. I don't remember having any big problems with XP, it was a lot better than 98, ME etc though some people still see 98 SE or so as the holy grail of all windows versions.:shrug:

And to be honest, I realized computers are nothing to buy and keep for ten years until you replace them so if anyone is bothered by a hardware requirement of a 1GHz CPU then I'm inclined to say that person has no idea how the computer industry works. It's an expensive hobby but like all hobbies, it's a matter of money and priority.

That's probably different if you use a computer only/mainly for work but then some work Pcs you get to see don't run very well anymore either and HDDs etc can just stop functioning after a while anyway.

I used Windows 2000 for a long time before I finally used XP. I don't even remember why I turned to XP, whether it was necessity or fancier graphics (or both). Probably both but more necessity than eye candy due to games probably supporting 2k less and less. When I think of it I wish I still used 2k all this time and that all the games would still run on it today. It's all NT anyway with some upgraded stuff here and there.

And when I have a quick skim through this, heheheh... Well, we more or less know the criticisms regarding Vista, but reading that simple list makes me view Vista as "something that is constructed by the devil (if there is a devil of course)" :laugh4:

But in any case, it will probably be the case that XP will be "rendered outdated" in some years, and in these years it is fair to assume Vista will have become an acceptable standard much like XP has become one and 2k before it, and so on. Until then or if otherwise necessitated I shall maintain my possession and utilization of XP.

What Microsoft has been stating in the provided article is... well, I don't want to go into too much detail, ...I'll take the easy way: it's Microsoft :saint: *runs off*

IMO, it wasn't until SP2 that XP had gotten right "right". It was the clear choice over both Win2000 and 98SE for workstations. For 2000 users, it had better driver support, ect and for 98SE users, it offered the much improved NTFS (compared to FAT32), as well as far superior process management.

So... what does Vista have that users want? Oh right, a lower TCO. :laugh4:

Just an attempt by Micro$$$oft to try to make some bucks off a rather OS. While it's not as pathetic as Sony's attempts to push the PS3 forward, it is kind of annoying.

I like XP. I works. Hell, 98 still works. Also, I don't like it when companies try to shove their new OS in my face. It looks nice, IMO, but I don't need it just yet.

Wait a couple of years and Microsoft will forget all about XP and start cursing Vista for its instability, lack of backwards compatibility, and poor driver quality. It's all a process.

Microsoft Attacks its Biggest Enemy: Windows XP....

and can't even do that right!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bowing to pressure from customers and computer makers, Microsoft plans to keep Windows XP around a little longer.

Large PC manufacturers were slated to have to stop selling XP after January 31. However, they have successfully lobbied Microsoft to allow them to continue selling PCs with all flavors of Windows XP preloaded until June 30, a further five months. Microsoft also plans to keep XP on retail shelves longer and will allow computer makers in emerging markets to build machines with Windows XP Starter Edition until June 2010.

The move indicates the continued demand for the older operating system, some nine months after Windows Vista hit store shelves.

XP4EVAR!11!one!!eleven1!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Microsoft Attacks its Biggest Enemy: Windows XP....

and can't even do that right!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bowing to pressure from customers and computer makers, Microsoft plans to keep Windows XP around a little longer.

Large PC manufacturers were slated to have to stop selling XP after January 31. However, they have successfully lobbied Microsoft to allow them to continue selling PCs with all flavors of Windows XP preloaded until June 30, a further five months. Microsoft also plans to keep XP on retail shelves longer and will allow computer makers in emerging markets to build machines with Windows XP Starter Edition until June 2010.

The move indicates the continued demand for the older operating system, some nine months after Windows Vista hit store shelves.

XP4EVAR!11!one!!eleven1!

---

Further evidence that people just don't want Vista. :yes:

I ordered my new PC with XP... woo hoo! :book: :balloon2: :yes:

I went to a Vista meeting, where they showed us what the good things and bad things were about Vista.

Well, from that meeting and experience with friends, I'd rather spend the money on a Vista that
1. Has the bugs fixed
2. Requires less memory.

The interface was cool, but if it keeps crashing then why get it?

My Vista didnt crash so far, except that a system restore totally destroyed my stuff until I had to undo the restore...

My vista has been generally stable....it's never "crashed"....it does hog a lot more ram, that much is obvious, and the cancel/allow crap can get a little annoying.

I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone speak of DX 10. It's light-years ahead of DX 9c. There is really no comparison.

I still have XP on my gaming rig, but I will be updating to Vista by next year, when I get around to buying a DX 10 capable video card.

What I noticed lately in Vista was that it uses around 41% of my 2GB RAM after startup. Then, after playing Mount&Blade and exiting the game, the RAM usage was around 21% and didn't go up again, swap file was the same size IIRC. So my guess is that it loads a lot of stuff on startup but reduces it's RAM usage when needed elsewhere. Might still use more than XP but my games run fine anyway.

This is the only recent Vista thread I could find, so I'll post here.

So, what with a DX10 patch coming out for FSX in about two months, and my addiction to flightsims with Haagen-Dazs eye-candy, as well as a recent PC Gamer article that said a lot of what was broken with Vista has been fixed, I'm considering, well, you know...

Aside for the Chicken Little stuff, and assuming I have adequate specs to run it (Vista + DX10), which I think I do, is it really as bad as everyone says to get it?

Also, If I back up all my stuff on an external HD, and those backups are done under XP, will Vista take them back in or leave them on the doorstop?

Also Pt:II, I have a brand new version of XP on my rig that I got about two months ago. If I Vista-ize, can I install my "old" XP on another machine that I want to set my buddy up with? Will it authorize online?

Thanks. ~:smoking:

Hmmm, sounds like a slippery slope legally. I would look at canadian copyright laws maybe? Or microsofts site?

I really have had no problems whatsoever with my Vista. Aside from a few older programs not running, I fail to see why it has gotten such a bad rap.

I don't remember one OS coming out that was completely bug-free...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

Hmmm, sounds like a slippery slope legally. I would look at canadian copyright laws maybe? Or microsofts site?

---

So if I "upgrade" to Vista, my two months old $120 XP disk is a drink coaster? Bummer.

I'll look into the copyright stuff. Thanks.

**Edit - From the Win XP EULA at the MS site.

13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms.

So unless I'm mistaken, I can off my copy to my buddy and put the cash towards Vista.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Also Pt:II, I have a brand new version of XP on my rig that I got about two months ago. If I Vista-ize, can I install my "old" XP on another machine that I want to set my buddy up with? Will it authorize online?

Thanks. ~:smoking:

---

So long as you give him the license number, the # on yon sticker somewhere on ye rig case. And that Vista upgrade pack comes with a new Vista only license number. If all those things come together. then yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

So long as you give him the license number, the # on yon sticker somewhere on ye rig case. And that Vista upgrade pack comes with a new Vista only license number. If all those things come together. then yes.

---

I think technically, if you buy the upgrade version of Vista, you're supposed to have a valid copy of XP that you upgraded from, as well. You'd need it regardless if you ever had to reinstall, because I believe you always need to install XP first and then upgrade it. However, if you buy the full blown version of Vista, I wouldn't sweat it.

*I'm not a lawyer.... yada yada.

I'm with Xiahou, I'd advise you to get the full version, not the upgrade. In that case there should be no problem giving your XP to someone else.

Concerning how bad Vista is, I'm thinking about abandoning XP completely. Pretty much the only reason I kept dual-booting was that my TV card and one or two games I played ran better/only in XP. Now I have two TV cards, one doesn't find half the important programs anymore and the software of the other crashes at startup. :dizzy2:

Anyway, most decent programs should run fine in Vista, the bugs are almost nonexistant as far as my experience goes and erm, it's just like XP only nicer. :shrug:

My last advice is get Home Premium, only if you feel rich and think you need a lot of stuff you may never use anyway should you get Ultimate. ~D

A Vista update.

My (new) computer dude (he owns three computer stores), the one who sold me my new rig, refuses to either sell me Vista or install it.

What a riot.

Would I still be able to play my music collection on Vista? I get some music from my friends, so it's not all...ahem...licensed...:shame:

I have erm, one MP3 file that was sent to me by a friend, seems to be encoded with Lame and works fine, apart from that I just "ripped" some song from RTW and that works as well, haven't had any problems so far but then all my other music is copied from CD.

Me and my Dad will be pooling money to get copies of Vista for us both as soon as service pack 1 is released, but i too am concerned about the issue raised by Evil Maniac - will our 'perfectly legal' music collections still work?

The DRM in Vista is almost entirely oriented toward video, so any music collection should still play normally. Most of the irritating CPU overhead is devoted to the "trusted video path" and other such nonsense.

Most people rip from their CDs into MP3, and MP3, by definition, contains no DRM. So it doesn't matter if you move your music from one computer to another, as long as it's MP3 or M4A, you should have no problems.

That's fortunate. Does Vista have any other major shortcomings anymore, and which Vista should I go for if I choose to get it over XP? Home Premium or otherwise?

Yes, Home Premium has pretty much everything you need/want.
You might want to go for the 32 bit version if you have some old Hardware which doesn't have any 64bit Vista drivers available.

I don't know about shortcomings, for the most part it's a nicer (and I dare say more stable) XP and I have the 64bit Business.

What're the differences between 32 and 64? Additional security?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, Home Premium has pretty much everything you need/want.

---

Not for me. I'd need Vista Business or Ultimate for it to be of any use to me- no domain/policies, ect with home versions. And since I'm not about to shell out that much- I won't be buying it anytime soon.

I suspect XP will be my main desktop OS for a very long time to come, with me more likely to go to a flavor of Linux than Vista.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The DRM in Vista is almost entirely oriented toward video, so any music collection should still play normally. Most of the irritating CPU overhead is devoted to the "trusted video path" and other such nonsense.

---

Can you disable that stuff manually?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Not for me. I'd need Vista Business or Ultimate for it to be of any use to me- no domain/policies, ect with home versions. And since I'm not about to shell out that much- I won't be buying it anytime soon.

---

I wasn't talking about you. :sweatdrop:

The Business version lacks the Media Center and MPEG-2 decoder so if you plan to watch TV or DVDs on it you'll most likely have to get additional software like some TV program or a Vista compatible DVD Player. And old XP compatible ones won't work, I tried it. Isn't necessarily expensive though, you can get WinDVD for 30$ IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

What're the differences between 32 and 64? Additional security?

---

Architecture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#32_vs_64_bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

and I dare say more stable

---

Please say you're joking.

I went to my grandparents the other week, to set up a home network. I had to give up the network idea until my Dad emailed me the password for the router, so i spent a few hours browsing the internet. Not only did i find Internet Explorer to run terribly sluggishly, but after a while i got a BSoD!

A BSoD!

I remember all those years ago, old Bill telling us that XP would be the end of the BSoD. Now here we are with Vista and our old friend is still popping up. Turns out it was a conflict with the anti-spyware software, but even so, that is no excuse, especially when said software is meant to be Vista Compatible. My arse.

And if you must know, this was on a computer with more than better specs - 2gb RAM, 3GHz processor and all that jazz, but still about as fast as a 56k connection.

I have to say though, it did look very nice, and a lot of the features were pretty cool. As long as they iron out bugs like sluggishness and eating up the computer, then i shall definitely go ahead with my aforementioned purchase.

I ran the beta on an Athlon XP 2400+ 1GB RAM and a 6600GT with AreoGlass enabled, it did take a split of a second to open some menus but otherwise it ran perfectly fine, if it's sluggish, you might have some other software problem.

That said, I have been using Opera for years, I'm not going to argue in favour of IE but I don't really hate it either.
I haven't seen a single BSoD, not in Beta 2, not in RC1 and not in the release product I'm using now. But then I don't install thousands of "useful" programs like anti spyware either.:sweatdrop:

From what I've heard and from the little I've seen when I had to use it, IE7 is terribly pokey when compared to non-MS browsers or even IE6. Probably because it's bloated with even more "features" that you don't need. (IE: anti-phishing) :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

I remember all those years ago, old Bill telling us that XP would be the end of the BSoD.

---

Good old Bill kept to his word. BSoDs are disabled by default in XP, you get a nice instantaneous reboot instead. :thumbsup:

One question, can the original MTW and STW run on Vista?

What are the important pros and cons of Vista as compared to XP?

EDIT: If I did get Vista, should I go from two to four GB of RAM?