XP to Be Phased Out By Year's End Despite Customer Demand

[Cowhead418]

It's capitalism, I always thought the west was proud of capitalism?
I think almost having to buy a whole new computer with the invention of DDR2, PCIe and other new standards is usually worse than having to buy a new Windows now and then, especially since IMO there is more that's forcing you to upgrade hardware than there is that forces you to get a new windows.
Basically Vista is a shiny new XP with some (IMO good)additions so I can see the reason they don't want to fit XP onto new computers, but nowhere did they say anyone is forced to convert.

IMO the force of upgrading on the hardware market is far worse and more expensive.

Right now I wish for some capitalism - competition = better quality. Microsoft barely has any competitors so they can do pretty much what they want. If only I could "take my business elsewhere" to a suitable competitor...

[caravel]

...which is exactly what semi-computer-illiterate Joe Average needs and wants. Most people don't really need their computers for very complicated things and are only too grateful if they can get them to work with the minimum of hassle and learning curve.

semi-computer-illiterate Joe Average and computer-illiterate Joe Average usually don't have a clue how to install windows and probably bought their pc OEM with windows preinstalled. This is how most windows users get hold of windows, the retail box sales are significantly lower and have been much lower this time around. Installation is not a factor for these people.

Frankly, I think I've had more trouble installing XP lately than I have had installing the latest Mandriva distro... Boot from CD, pick you packages, done. Sound worked, video worked, it even pre-loaded drivers for my onboard NIC- XP doesn't do that. Nothing like installing XP, loading SP2 and then having a BSOD on reboot because it replaces your IDE drivers with incompatible ones.

You have pretty much the same experiences as myself then. I find that my Network and all other hardware (with the exception of my graphics card - it works but has no 3D API support until I install the driver, for many this isn't an issue of course.) just works straight off.

And why does everybody always go out and call MS and Bill Gates bad and all that on every chance they get? If they are THAT money hungry, why did I get my Vista for free? Why do students generally pay less or nothing?

I think you'll find that has a lot more to do with local/government/education authority subsidies and less to do with MS being philanthropists. It also ensures that MS "gets them young". MS have been unpopular due to their extreme anti competitiveness, arrogance and determination to destroy any and all competition by whatever means necessary. I thought that was common knowledge?

I like getting things for free as much as anyone else but if someone wants money for their work, that's fine with me and if it's too expensive IMO, I don't buy it, but I don't blame them all the time. I'd rather pay 200EUR for Vista than for a jeans to be precise. It's just a pity there are no open-source jeans for free.

I wouldn't pay €2 for Vista let alone €200. In the future no doubt many will be forced onto it kicking and screaming as MS intentionally drops support for XP. This is why MS has programs like for example MSN Messenger, it's basically a migration coercion tool and effective "loyalty card". That's pretty much the only reason why you can get it for free (or did you simply assume they were giving you something for nothing?). It always goes kind of like this: The new version comes out with extra bells and whistles, and Win2k support is sneakily dropped (not for any particular reason except that they don't want it to work on the older OS), also the old versions will no longer connect, forcing the users to migrate to the new version, but to do this they must have XP. They are forced to migrate. The same will happen with Vista once the "Windows OMGWTF Messenger 2008" is released and they announce that it won't run on XP. That's the big difference between Windows and a free OS. With the first the consumers are treated like mindless sheep being herded along. MS knows what's best for the consumer after all eh?

Right now I wish for some capitalism - competition = better quality. Microsoft barely has any competitors so they can do pretty much what they want. If only I could "take my business elsewhere" to a suitable competitor...

Well exactly. This is exactly the same as any other business. Competition is healthy and encourages innovation. ATI and Nvidia drive the 3D graphics hardware market onwards and upwards by constantly trying to better each other. Car manufacturers compete against each other's designs. Having just one manufacturer is in fact very reminiscent of communism. MS does not have any such competition, because it has been suppressing, suing, absorbing and otherwise destroying potential competitors for decades. MS thrives on piracy in the 2nd and 3rd world and lets the 1st world paying end user foot the bill. There is also no need for competition in the form of another proprietary OS due to the proliferation of pirate MS software in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America. MS don't bother to combat this because it snuffs out any potential competition arising in those regions, they simply increase prices to hit the paying end user and add irritating copy protection that will only annoy legitimate users that actually bought the software licence and use windows update - not the pirates and users of the pirate copies. This is why MS hate GNU/Linux because they see it as a cynical attempt to take a dent out of their profits, and nothing more. Unfortunately many MS loyalists share that mindset.

[Husar]

Well, there is competition in the form of Apple and Linux, but people don't buy it because it's too small(not offered everywhere) and the amount of available software is not the same.
And then there is something about computers and standardization, I think having to release a game or other program for five different operating systems and having to patch them all independently would raise more costs, except if the OSes are all standardized anyway, which would probably limit their differences again.
Generally, I'm just not willing to invest thousands of hours searching on the internet to get Linux working the way I want and learn all the command line commands, for me Windows works fine, I didn't pay 2EUR for it and whether it's a good thing MS destroyed all competition I do not know, but there was that official cartel watchdog office whatever you call it which apparently didn't do anything against that. I do agree however that blackmailing other companies to sell only MS products is a very bad thing, but IIRC Intel did the same thing, should I throw away my Core 2 Duo now?

[Watchman]

semi-computer-illiterate Joe Average and computer-illiterate Joe Average usually don't have a clue how to install windows and probably bought their pc OEM with windows preinstalled. This is how most windows users get hold of windows, the retail box sales are significantly lower and have been much lower this time around. Installation is not a factor for these people.

Exactly. Minimum of hassle, and if they for some reason do have to install it they can easily enough open the phone book and find someone who will do it for them in return of modest monetary reimbursement.

Sort of like how folks tend to prefer buying their beef from the store readily butchered and dressed.

I think you'll find that has a lot more to do with local/government/education authority subsidies and less to do with MS being philanthropists. It also ensures that MS "gets them young". MS have been unpopular due to their extreme anti competitiveness, arrogance and determination to destroy any and all competition by whatever means necessary. I thought that was common knowledge?

I do recall seeing it in the news they have a bad relationship with the EU antitrust authorities for a while now, certainly.

[caravel]

Well, there is competition in the form of Apple and Linux, but people don't buy it because it's too small(not offered everywhere) and the amount of available software is not the same.

Apple is fast evolving into becoming something entirely different. Their latest OS is based on a BSD OS, and Macs have switched to Intel processors (making them effectively x86 architecture PCs). Half of the software that made apple so unique and favoured by the graphic designer has been available on windows for years. Despite all of this, Mac users stick with Macs because they are a quality product without the crashing, virus spyware issues of MS, and because Mac is what they know - much the same reason as to why many Windows users stick with Windows.

GNU/Linux, again is not a single project set up in competition to Windows, it is a multitude of UNIX like OSs based on GNU code and the Linux kernel that has been developed by those that want a stable and secure alternative to Windows that doesn't cost anything. For the the "average joe" home user it might not be their thing.

And then there is something about computers and standardization, I think having to release a game or other program for five different operating systems and having to patch them all independently would raise more costs, except if the OSes are all standardized anyway, which would probably limit their differences again.

ID software have always managed to do this, the executable is usually the only majorly different component, the rest of the game media is the same as the used by the windows release - so the patching is actually not that difficult at all. There are Linux versions of Nero, Java J2RE, Opera, Firefox and Flash Player and Acrobat Reader among many others. There are also Nvidia and ATI drivers for Linux for most types of hardware. Building code to run on an OS and porting it to another is not that much of a mammoth task if the architecture is the same. This is not about porting to another architecture such as a Sparc/Solaris, just to a different OS running on the same architecture. If a small program such as Wine can run many windows apps under Linux on an x86 then proprietary developers can port those same apps to run natively, as many of them have done already.

Generally, I'm just not willing to invest thousands of hours searching on the internet to get Linux working the way I want and learn all the command line commands, for me Windows works fine, I didn't pay 2EUR for it and whether it's a good thing MS destroyed all competition I do not know, but there was that official cartel watchdog office whatever you call it which apparently didn't do anything against that.

No one is asking you to do so. I'm not sure which distribution it was that you had such a bad experience with? Some Linux disros are just not designed for beginners or home users at all - though even I as a pretty intermediate user can get distros such as Slackware up and running.

I do agree however that blackmailing other companies to sell only MS products is a very bad thing, but IIRC Intel did the same thing, should I throw away my Core 2 Duo now?

Intel have a similar anticompetitive history to MS. Luckily for the consumer AMD came along and changed all of that. Whether you love/hate AMD is irrelevant, the main thing is that they gave Intel some competition, which lead to better CPU design and cheaper prices for the consumer. The thing to remember with AMD though is that they achieved all of this by producing what was effectively an Intel clone, and slowly deviated from this over the years to define their own product and are now a recognised brand on a par with Intel. The same thing cannot happen in the OS market because of the closed source nature of Windows. This basically means rival OS's will be very different animals forcing people to make a VHS or Betamax type decision when buying. This sort of scenario always involves a winner and a loser, and like the VHS/Betamax issue, the best quality product does not always come out on top.

Exactly. Minimum of hassle, and if they for some reason do have to install it they can easily enough open the phone book and find someone who will do it for them in return of modest monetary reimbursement.

Sort of like how folks tend to prefer buying their beef from the store readily butchered and dressed.

Windows has this kind of support because it is the de facto standard OS, the most popular world wide and has a virtual monopoly. Other OS's will never gain popular support while MS keeps the user conditioned to doing things the windows way. Bundling software to ensure the end user uses their web browser, media player and IM client.

Interestingly, there is a store near me that sells pcs preinstalled with Linux and will install any Linux on your machine for a small fee.

I do recall seeing it in the news they have a bad relationship with the EU antitrust authorities for a while now, certainly.

Well yes, that's on account of their "bundling" activities, which they're now infamous for.