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

[Lemur]

I feel kinda Charlton Heston about this. Word is getting out that Microsoft will not license XP to builders for much longer, despite the known issues with Vista, and despite strong customer demand for the older OS.

Save your old XP discs. They're going to be worth a bundle on eBay in about a year.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Windows XP to be phased out by year's end despite customer demand

12th April 2007, Angus Kidman

Computer makers have been told they'll no longer be able to get Windows XP OEM by the end of this year, despite consumer resistance to Vista and its compatibility problems.

By early 2008, Microsoft's contracts with computer makers will require companies to only sell Vista-loaded machines. "The OEM version of XP Professional goes next January," said Frank Luburic, senior ThinkPad product manager for Lenovo. "At that point, they'll have no choice."

Despite Microsoft's relentless promotion of Vista, manufacturers are still seeing plenty of demand from customers for systems preloaded with XP, especially in the finicky SOHO market.

In a recent post on its Direct2Dell blog, Dell reaffirmed to concerned customers that it wasn't about to force small business users -- who typically purchase PCs piecemeal, rather than in large enterprise-style orders -- to shift to Vista, which has experienced a less-than-stellar reaction from many buyers because of driver issues and moderately beefy hardware requirements.

"Dell recognizes the needs of small business customers and understands that more time is needed to transition to a new operating system," the post read in part. "The plan is to continue offering Windows XP on select Dimension and Inspiron systems until later this [northern] summer."

"From a local perspective, the post was a reminder more than an announcement," Dell ANZ corporate communications manager Paul McKeon told APC.

"This was something we'd always planned during the transition phase since businesses will have different time frames to adopt the new OS. If you're a consumer, you're unlikely to be managing more than say 2.4 OS images at home, so it's less of an issue"

There's general agreement amongst PC resellers that Vista has provided a minor boost to PC sales, but hasn't produced blockbuster numbers. A similar story applies in the retail space. Figures from marketing consultancy GfK suggest that after an initial sales surge, around 1500 copies of Vista are now being sold through Australian retailers each week, according to a recent report in the AFR.

While Dell's post suggested it wouldn't be promoting Vista systems to the home market, manufacturers still have the option of selling XP-based systems for consumers this year.

[drone]

I saw this as well. They have already cleared XP boxes off the shelves of most stores around here too. Me and a friend are going to order one of the XP Pro OEM 3-packs soon, should keep us set until Vista is stable in a few years.

It's sad that M$ needs to resort to crap like this to force people to upgrade to Vista. If they had just made a decent product with enough new capabilities, this wouldn't be necessary. Maybe my next Windows box will be my last. I'm getting older, and many of the new games just don't appeal to me.

As an aside, I think the timeline for XP is support through 2009, with security updates ending in 2011.

[Xiahou]

So, DX10 isn't enough to force people into buying Vista I guess?

[lars573]

Most people don't game on a PC.

[Husar]

I saw this as well. They have already cleared XP boxes off the shelves of most stores around here too. Me and a friend are going to order one of the XP Pro OEM 3-packs soon, should keep us set until Vista is stable in a few years.

In a few years they want to release a new OS, they said about 3 years.
And I'd really like to know about your experience with those instabilities of Vista...

[Leonidas The Lion]

Why the hell did they rush things with vista just like they did with windows 2000

[sapi]

Because that way they get more money

[Rodion Romanovich]

Gah! A good reason to prepare a switch from XP to Linux rather than from XP to Vista.

[sapi]

Games + most programs don't run on linux, so microsoft's strategy will unfortunately work.

[Husar]

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.

[Bijo]

What if you need to upgrade both the machine and the OS? Messes up enough people. And capitalism: HAH! We like it until it hits us on the head

But let me look into the future I predict... M$ will be hit by... the upcoming force -- though slowly -- of Linux. And of course M$'s HQ will be hit by an E-bomb dropped by terrorists :P

[sapi]

Linux doesn't have a chance commerically.

Before it can succeed in the mass market (read: outside servers), it needs program support.

Before it can get program support, it needs to have a large user base (ie. to have succeeded)

[Husar]

And capitalism: HAH! We like it until it hits us on the head

Well, in communism, a public servant would go from house to house and install the new people's OS on every machine by force and the money would just be taken from your bank account because it's all for the better of the people.

Concerning Linux, it just doesn't appeal to me, just like FireFox and MirandaIM . I feel like using open source always requires a lot of effort of searching plugins and addons etc and install thousands of them seperately before you get the same than from a more commercial product. And then you come across incompatibilies and once you're through all this, you feel like you could have just as well programmed it yourself, judging by the amount of reading, learning and work you had to do to get it to work.
Yes, there are fora for everything, but just installing a complete product suits my laziness a lot more. And they often come with enough customizing options to suit my needs anyway.

[doc_bean]

Piracy will be the big winner, not Linux.

[Tran]

Perhaps people should hurry to buy one or two sets of XP while still available and boycott Vista forever. Microsoft might force us to switch by stopping support, download updates, security stuff, and the like but I'm very sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, people out there willing to share their help and provide free and useful tools (a.k.a freeware) to help XP users...

Or if the above scenario failed, just assemble a division of Taliban militants and push the jihad button then select "Microsoft HQ" as the target, or you might beg to the Pope to call crusade there by showing the Microsoft as evil infidel...this second scenario is guaranteed 99% to be working, if you're cunning enough...

[Xiahou]

Linux doesn't have a chance commerically.

Hmm, depends how you mean that.

Before it can succeed in the mass market (read: outside servers), it needs program support.

Before it can get program support, it needs to have a large user base (ie. to have succeeded)

Your typical, non-gamer computer user can do just about everything the already do in Windows out of the box. Virtually every distro has Web browsers, email clients, media players, and a fully featured office suite built into it- all free.

Sadly, game support is still spotty But, there are really lots of games that can run on Linux- again, many of them free. I think the real problem is- it's different. IT guys like myself who grew up on MS OSes are just naturally uncomfortable in Linux because we're used to doing things 'the Microsoft Way'(tm). I know basically how services work, where apps install, where to click to change settings, ect. Under Linux, the underlying architecture is very different and it takes us out of our comfort level.

I don't see myself buying Vista anywhere in the foreseeable future. I may eventually get it if Im issued hardware with it installed and I'll probably have to use/understand it for my job. But my plans are to use XP until it's gaming support is pretty well dried up. Then I'll decide whether I'm ready for Linux on the desktop. I've already got it running on a home server- it does file/print sharing, hosts a web page, emulates an NT domain and gets used for surfing/gaming when I don't feel like turning my main PC on. All of that running on 8yr old hardware with nary a problem. It only gets turned off when I vacuum the dust out of it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Games + most programs don't run on linux, so microsoft's strategy will unfortunately work.

Actually, open office, which is as opposed to Ms Office free, is fully compatible with Ms Office. There are also plenty of well supported web browsers, image editors, 3d modelling tools, project planning programs etc. etc. Modern linux distributions like Red Hat are almost exactly like windows so it's easy to learn how to use it. Linux is also a much better environment for programming, with a lot of support tools and ease of use that windows doesn't have. Porting windows programs to Linux is also quite easy. One of the few things Linux doesn't have, is DirectX. The problems with Linux are that:
1. people want to be able to play all games, i.e. they need Direct X, but this positive position for windows is weakened by vista's compatibility problems
2. the transition is still slightly more complex than to windows. I don't understand why the Linux distributions don't work harder to improve this particular point...
3. a few specialized professional market programs aren't yet available for Linux. For people with very special needs, it's preferable to buy windows programs for thousands of dollars, over getting free Linux programs that can do about 99% of all things that these specialized windows programs can do.
4. schools have chosen to teach windows, msoffice and other microsoft programs, rather than also showing alternative programs. One or two lectures displaying the modern Linux distributions such as Red Hat, and how similar they are to windows in terms of usage, would be useful for the Linux platform, and devastating to Microsoft.

[sapi]

The real issue with linux is the lack of a 'killer app'

In its current state, of emulating almost perfectly the functions of windows but only exceeding it in specialised fields, it will never succeed commercially; indeed I don't believe that that should be its goal.

What I meant by my earlier comments is that specialised programs, such as accounting software, often run only on windows and there is currently no incentive to port to linux.

[Husar]

You're forgetting about driver support.
My dad couldn't get his TV card to work in Linux, the program was there but there were no useful settings to be found and there was no TV picture, in the end he just gave up... I don't even know whether that was a driver issue, but installing ATI drivers wasn't that much easier and while I got them to run after a lot of searching on the internet, I couldn't get 3D support to work, also gave up.
It's these things which keep me from using Linux, I just don't want to search the internet endless times and write really long commands in a text interface just to get a few drivers to work, if there are any drivers at all that is.

Concerning the incompatibility of Vista with a few games, that wasn't very different when XP and especially Windows 2000 came out, I remember seeing a whole lot of Win 2000 patches for all sorts of games.

Open Office is nice, I use it myself, but in Windows. But I also tried Gimp and I found the interface quite horrible and also got a lot of errors about missing plugins or whatever. Free software is nice, but I've found a lot of horrible free programs where I might have prefered a decent program that costs some money, though, the free software thread here is a very nice idea, maybe someone could put in some links to software that allows me to rip a DVD to a WMP-compatible format and/or a ripper to another format plus a converter to a WMP compatible format. Last time I tried to get a DVD video to work in WMP I found a lot, but they all wanted money or put watermarks into the movie etc...
And I just wanted to try to watch a DVD on my cellphone.

[Marius Dynamite]

How can a company be so unbelievably money grabbing? Even look at the Xbox 360. They don't give you an inch at all. I hope someone works out ways to steal stuff from Microsoft and totally exploits it. Maybe the source codes for Vista or something and sells it for free then, at the same time, they make their own operating system which is a copy of Vista but better. Then, in one quick swoop, they get all contracts for games during the Microsoft OS crisis they inflicted and all of a sudden we have a competitive market. Although that could end up being a bad thing

[CrossLOPER]

Windows 95 + DOS = (sort of)WIN.

[Bijo]

*Emperor voice* Yesss, yesss... let it come to you. Let the DARK side of the force consume you. Microsoft...? Take your weapon...! And strike them down and your training will be complete.


Eh-- I mean...

I think Open Office is a killer app. I also use it in Windows and I prefer it over Microsoft's because it's (1) free; (2) not M$; (3) compatible with most used file types (as stated earlier by Legio); (4) not M$; (5) not M$

I even replace(d) Notepad with Notepad++ 'cause it really IS incrementally more worthy than basic Notepad, and it's freeware, open software, and a damn good one at that.

Linux, as it's getting better and better, will march slowly to trample Windows/M$ beneath its boot in the future. And when that day comes, I will be so happy that they own M$ that when I go to sleep I wake up dead the next morning. Or maybe I would be "asleep" already in old age when they own 'em :P

[Husar]

I wouldn't wonder that once Linux becomes really big, everybody will start to hate it and root for some other underdog OS. Hackers will concentrate on it and find all the security holes etc...

[edyzmedieval]

Bill Gates's greed cannot be stopped. Even though he has 50 billion, he wants even more....

[Blodrast]

Before saying anything, lemme just state that I like Linux. I use it all the time, am quite comfortable with it, etc. I believe it's a better OS than M$'s stuff, from most points of view (except - an albeit important - one: ease of use). Just saynig this so you can understand more where I'm coming from with my next statements.

Actually, open office, which is as opposed to Ms Office free, is fully compatible with Ms Office.

Ahem. I beg to differ. Maybe the windoze version is - I wouldn't know, since I've never used it, but I have used the linux versions, plenty of times. Believe me, you do NOT know the frustration to struggle to do a few simple things (and I'm not computer illiterate) and figuring out that they are simply not supported (as in, the software simply doesn't do all those things), or import some stuff to/from MS Office and not having it work the same way...
Oh no my friend, the "fully" compatible is very, very much under discussion.
Oh, and we're not talking incredibly subtle, obscure options here, no. I can give you concrete, specific examples, if you don't believe me. :)

Porting windows programs to Linux is also quite easy.

Again, I beg to differ.

2. the transition is still slightly more complex than to windows. I don't understand why the Linux distributions don't work harder to improve this particular point...

Definitely agree with you here, and it's an issue that has stumped me for years... I mean, WTH, after more than 15 years of development, we still have major distros (debian anyone ?) where the installation is done via command line, and you need to know beforehand about repositories, which ones you want to use, what packages do you need first, and so on. We're talking extremely user-unfriendly here. Oh, yes, there are quite a few text-mode interfaces that are a bit friendlier, but they are less flexible (surprisingly). You want to customize your stuff ? Then take a few hours to select and deselect packages, 'cause there's no such thing as a predefined selection of packages that makes any sense (and that goes for all distros I've tried... I still remember when I chose the "server" installation and I didn't get ssh...the client OR the server side...wth kinda server is it that one cannot connect to it ?!!)


Bottom line, I'm afraid, is there are still a few deal-breakers for linux (sadly).
Husar pointed out one of them.
Drivers for your hardware. That's a huge pain. When my ex-wife bought her laptop, we spent 3 days configuring and installing stuff for it... and it took more than a day and a half of 3 people trying to get the wireless working properly (3 people who, I might add, are all doing their PhD's in computer engineering, in the systems area).
Sometimes stuff works, sure enough. But if you were foolish enough to buy hardware that's new enough that there's no drivers for it yet, well...

As I was pointing out above, the installation process is still incredibly unwieldy, and full of problems.
Wanna hear a funny story ? I was installing a debian on some server, from a cd. At some point during the installation process (pretty early), it detects a few things about your hw, loads drivers, etc. However, this is a bit of way in the process, it's not the very first thing. So it loads stuff for everything, all is ok, except one thing: it doesn't find a cd-drive on my system.
That would be the cd-drive from which the cd was running, which had started the installation, and from which it happily read quite a few things during the installation process (like I said, this wasn't the very first thing in the installation process). So yeah, it was running from the cd, but refused to acknowledge that I had a cd drive. Can't argue with a program, can you ?
And no, it wasn't some exotic/obscure cd drive, either - proof is that we got so far in the installation process with the standard drivers...

The ease of use I agree with, to a point - sure enough, the GUIs are as easy to use as windows, but there's still times when you need to go to the command line, and, for some reason, that scares people (not sure I understand why, though).

Until they fix these things, and a few more games find their way to linux as well, I'm afraid it's not gonna get much more popular. It's getting better, true, but too slow...

[Roman_Man#3]

Microsoft has monopolized the OS market, hence they can do what they want, and they still get a lot of money. I think it is a good idea to buy the XP OS, so as to not go to the horrible Vista. Microsoft should stick to what works, and stop being so greedy. It is shameful what this company is over. I think someone said something along these lines. I see Microsoft as the Empire from Star Wars. Evil.

RM3

[Husar]

Bill Gates's greed cannot be stopped. Even though he has 50 billion, he wants even more....

You do know that he stepped down from his position as president/chairman/whatever of the company to devote more time to the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation and that he wants to give 95% of his money to that foundation until/when he dies or so?
He's the perfect example that the American dream and capitalism work, yet people see him as their arch enemy, which just proves that people are greedy. I think there are some people not nearly as rich as him who are a lot more evil. Judging by his fund, he just takes money from us rich western people(yes, a computer IS a luxury!) and gives it to the poor, kind of like a robin hood. Sometimes it's just awesome how we complain here in the west while others don't even have enough food.
I fit into that category(of western whiners) myself, but at least I know it.

Concerning the Linux/Windows debate, I got both Vista and XP set up in about an hour, Vista somewhat faster because it already has all the mandatory drivers, only ones I installed were graphicsdrivers. Well, bloodrast already described the hassles there can be with setting up Linux and I described some as well. In the end, both my Windows installations run very stable and so I don't really see the advantages of changing to Linux, especially since it cannot do anything more than Windows, in fact, it can do less and setting things up is a lot more hassle, at least concerning my demands. Now, of course there is pricing, but being a lucky western kid, I never payed for any Windows I had, I got the old ones from my dad until he had 2 XPs and nowadays I get them for free via university, so maybe I'm not qualified to talk about that yet, but I think once I earn my own money, spending one or two hundred euros every three years isn't all that much and the quality and stability of Windows has increased, I'd consider Win 98 or ME more of a ripoff than Vista.
And all the program incompatibilities have existed since the invention of Windows, it's not like Vista invented incompatibility, though most of the more modern games should run anyway, I know most of mine do(though Stalker really needs a patch). With HDDs ranging in the hundreds of GBs these days, dual boot is also a nice option, and dual-booting two Windows is a lot easier than getting one Linux to work IMO. Of course all the illegal downloads might have taken a lot of space, but I'm not going to comment on that.

[Bijo]

The ease of use I agree with, to a point - sure enough, the GUIs are as easy to use as windows, but there's still times when you need to go to the command line, and, for some reason, that scares people (not sure I understand why, though).

Probably because the graphical UIs continually developed throughout the time made people -- especially the average PC-using ones who don't have much computer knowledge -- more and more comfortable and erased the need for knowing command line use. Ahh, makes me think of DOS. Now it's mostly WYSIWYG while the prompt and such isn't. They just want to click and get immediate easy results.

--edit---
And Husar, I hear ya. It's just the life standards that are higher, and since many keep seeking for more and more they'll never be happy. If I had to choose between food or PCs, OSs etc., pfff I take food ....or computers and do as much as I can and then die of starvation.... happily? LOL

[caravel]

Concerning the Linux/Windows debate, I got both Vista and XP set up in about an hour, Vista somewhat faster because it already has all the mandatory drivers, only ones I installed were graphicsdrivers. Well, bloodrast already described the hassles there can be with setting up Linux and I described some as well. In the end, both my Windows installations run very stable and so I don't really see the advantages of changing to Linux, especially since it cannot do anything more than Windows, in fact, it can do less and setting things up is a lot more hassle, at least concerning my demands. Now, of course there is pricing, but being a lucky western kid, I never payed for any Windows I had, I got the old ones from my dad until he had 2 XPs and nowadays I get them for free via university, so maybe I'm not qualified to talk about that yet, but I think once I earn my own money, spending one or two hundred euros every three years isn't all that much and the quality and stability of Windows has increased, I'd consider Win 98 or ME more of a ripoff than Vista.

What you are saying is that MS Windows simply is better because it's easier to install and configure? That is what is coming across to me as the essence of your whole argument in this thread and in others. I cannot see the logic in an OS somehow being better based solely on the fact that the installation is easier? Windows is easier to install and configure because the vast majority of it's configuration is automated. This is great for the average user, but for many it's very annoying working with an OS that is so inflexible and not easily reconfigured. Personally I've had few problems installing Linux or Linux drivers except perhaps ATI drivers, but that is mainly down to poor support from ATI (this has improved quite a bit now anyway). Installation of an OS such as, for example, FC6 or Ubuntu couldn't be simpler in fact and I find that it usually installs much faster and easier than any Windows. I also find that I rarely need to download any drivers at all, as many drivers ship with the OS. In fact the only driver I ever need is the ATI one.

With HDDs ranging in the hundreds of GBs these days, dual boot is also a nice option, and dual-booting two Windows is a lot easier than getting one Linux to work IMO.

Again, because you can't get "one Linux to work" doesn't mean that it is difficult for everyone. I know plenty of people that have installed Linux and are happy with what they've got. It simply, works, does what they want, no more viruses, BSODs, malware and it's all free of course which begs the question: do you look a gift horse in the mouth? It all depends on what you want out of your PC. Individual users' needs are very diverse.

[Watchman]

What you are saying is that MS Windows simply is better because it's easier to install and configure? That is what is coming across to me as the essence of your whole argument in this thread and in others. I cannot see the logic in an OS somehow being better based solely on the fact that the installation is easier? Windows is easier to install and configure because the vast majority of it's configuration is automated. This is great for the average user, but for many it's very annoying working with an OS that is so inflexible and not easily reconfigured.

...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.