Microsoft Attacks its Biggest Enemy: Windows XP

**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.

**Lemur** · 09-09-2007, 15:01

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.

**Hepcat** · 09-09-2007, 18:20

That's so funny.

**caravel** · 09-09-2007, 21:05

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.