Microsoft Attacks its Biggest Enemy: Windows XP

**Lemur** · 09-09-2007, 06:09

This is kinda hilarious.

**sapi** · 09-09-2007, 06:14

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

**edyzmedieval** · 09-09-2007, 08:30

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

But still, M$, come onn...

**Papewaio** · 09-09-2007, 08:40

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...

**Husar** · 09-09-2007, 13:04

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.

**caravel** · 09-09-2007, 14:21

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.

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.

**Bijo** · 09-09-2007, 23:57

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)"

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

*runs off*

**Xiahou** · 09-10-2007, 15:12

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.

**CrossLOPER** · 09-10-2007, 16:15

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.