ie8 fix

Is Windows XP too good for Microsoft's own good?

By | September 27, 2007, 8:45pm PDT

Summary: Did Microsoft make XP Service Pack (SP) 2 too good for its own good? Or is Vista just an off release that Microsoft should hurry up and replace — and definitely sooner than 2010, when it is slated to roll out Windows 7?

On September 27, Microsoft has extended the cut-off as to when PC makers will be allowed to continue to sell Windows XP with new machines.

Is Windows XP too good for Microsoft’s own good?Until now, January 30, 2008, was the Microsoft-imposed deadline for system vendors to cease offering Windows XP on all new OEM machines. (System builders, a k a white-box vendors, had a longer deadline: January 30, 2009.) But as a result of feedback from customers and partners, Microsoft has extended the OEM and retailer cut-off date for XP to June 30, 2008. That gives consumers five more months to buy XP with new Windows PCs before being required to provide Vista.

The system-builder cut-off date for XP stays at 2009. Vendors selling XP Starter Edition on “ultra-low-cost” machines get a longer reprieve and can sell XP through 2010. And, in spite of the later cutover date for OEMs, nothing changes, in terms of how long Microsoft will support Windows Vista: Microsoft will provide mainstream support through 2012 and extended support through 2017.

Microsoft began paving the way for a longer Vista ramp-up in July, when it began simplifying the process by which its top-tier PC partners could downgrade Vista users to XP.

Microsoft officials insist Vista is selling well and the push back of the cutover deadline shouldn’t be interpreted as Microsoft lessening its commitment to Vista. The company will continue to spend its Windows marketing and support dollars on Vista, not XP.

“The one-year XP transition just turned out to be a little too ambitious,” acknowledged Kevin Kutz, a director in the Windows client unit. Traditionally, Microsoft has given OEMs two years to transition to a new operating system release, Kutz said.

Some industry watchers see the move as evidence of Microsoft is being responsive to customers and partners. Others see it as Microsoft going with the lesser of two evils by giving users not ready to move to Vista a choice other than defecting to Mac OSX or Linux. Even though Microsoft is likely making a few less dollars per copy of XP sold to OEMs than it makes on a copy of Vista, a Windows sale is still a Windows sale.

For my part, I can’t help but wonder if Vista finally and irrevocably pushed Windows into the same category as Microsoft Office, meaning that the cost and potential risks of upgrading have come to outweigh the benefit of new features in the eyes of many customers.

What’s your take? Did Microsoft make XP Service Pack (SP) 2 too good for its own good? Or is Vista just an off release that Microsoft should hurry up and replace — and definitely sooner than 2010, when it is slated to roll out Windows 7?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

694
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Is Windows XP too good for Microsoft's own good?
dfwekrdfe2301-24353662930198386032853008779225 12th Nov
wgmdsh,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
Or, It ain't broke so don't fix it.
YinToYourYang-22527499 27th Sep 2007
Maybe people are too tired of working out the kinks for Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
I really don't see the problem.
Solid Jedi Knight 28th Sep 2007
Considering all the noise in the numerous forums over the monumental security issues in Windows XP, I don't see how anyone could stay on that platform. While Vista is not anywhere near perfect, I still don't see why half of the people in here complain. If it boots up and gets the job done, then the OS has done its job. Considering that even with IE 7, XP still constantly gets patch after patch after patch! If XP was a house, it would be in need of a remodel.

My biggest complaint with Vista is the inferior memory management, lack of speed improvement over XP, and poor gaming on top tier games. To me, XP and Vista run about the same speed, except for games. The memory problems are obvious when you are trying to do multiple tasks. Even with a dual core, the only improvement I've seen are in applications such as anti-virus scans or anti-spyware sweeps. Even the internet upload/download is pretty much the same.

Security wise its a major improvement over XP, moderate improvement in overall performance, good improvements in applications, and games are still being worked out. Its really no better than when XP launched but better in terms of the daily tasks done by most home consumers. Considering that OS-X is notorious for each version fixing flaws in the last version, Apple is no different than Microsoft when having its customers beta tests their operating systems.

The reason why Vista wins is because its not XP. The platform is stable and secure at this time. It boots, gets the job done, but its a work in progress. The last performance updates did their job and Vista is making slow steps foward. Considering that both Mac OS-X and Linux both are now tackling the many security flaws in their respective operating systems, I would argue that its a great reason to move towards Vista.

Linux will not be a viable desktop OS for a number of reasons. First, too many competing versions of the same OS. There's RedHat, Ubuntu, openSUSE, Linspire, Darwin, and many other versions out there. Its owned by so many different companies that none of them can honestly market a version on any commercial media without risk of lawsuit. With almost no advertisement money or push, Linux is dead on arrival. The reason why Microsoft and Apple are 1 and 2 is easy: MARKETING! Those commericials and print media advertisement gets people's attention.

The open source nature of Linux is its very own worst enemy. Almost anyone can find weaknesses in the source code and exploit it. No matter how you lockdown a system, a Linux knowledgable person could compromise it. Since major countries like the U.S., UK, France, Germany, China and Russia employ crackers, you know they are tearing Linux code inside and out. Thats why the U.S. Department of Defense doesn't use it. Many argue that its only a few months advantage before a new distro comes out. With someone well versed in computer language, those few months do not mean squat. Kids out there are learning computer languages and technology even faster than the previous generation.

Finally, a lack of real 3rd party software makers has held Linux with its 2.8 percent of the world's desktop market. Why would anyone put their proprietary applications on an open source OS? Not only does it compromise the profit but it also weakens whatever position they have in the free market. Since all Linux based products requires full disclosure of code, I don't think business will want to do that. All businesses are in it for one thing profit. Linux cost more to setup and maintain versus a Microsoft or Apple environment. Since many versions of Linux are free, there is no incentive to market one for money. Even if you did add support, I don't think anyone out there pays for a Linux OS. It is ultimately its own worse enemy and why its just a niche player like Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Open your eyes... you might see better
MegaBitzz 28th Sep 2007
here are very few of the reasons that people complain.
Vista does indeed boot and get the job done (eventually). It has a little more eye candy - at the expense of having to wait a few extra minutes (which given the speed of the current hardware is unforgivable).

When people were considering the switch from 2000 to XP, the decision was made a little simpler - performance with XP was just a little better than with 2K on the same hardware.

I'm assuming that your copy of Vista didn't come with a new internet connection which is probably why you didn't notice any performance difference on the upload and download speeds.

Lets get to the security stuff you talked about. Vista is a new OS, so there are fewer chances of it having been tested (indeed by the customers) for flaws - XP has reached a relatively stable point delivered through service packs and intermittent security updates. The (main) reason that Linux is a little safer is that the code is open to everyone. People with harmful intent have the code as well as those with good intent. When someone notices a flaw, it can be fixed and sent for inclusion.

Linux is not dead on arrival. It's not so much the lack of software options that results in people not taking to it - it's just too difficult (yep, I use Windows boxes at home and the office) for general users to handle at the moment without support, but that's changing - slowly, but it's happening.

The thing that ticked me off the most about your comment was the assumption that "Linux based products require full disclosure of code" implies that programs running on Linux should be open source as well. You think Oracle gives their code to anyone who installs their database on Linux?
As far as costs go, Linux is MUCH cheaper to setup and maintain if you're looking at a server setup (try checking prices on webspace on a Linux box and a Windows box to validate this).

Anyway, don't take my word for it... there's lots of government bodies/educational institutions and stuff that are switching to Linux.

It's a nice long comment but without research or knowledge of the subject.
0 Votes
+ -
Open your own eyes...
wolf_z 28th Sep 2007
While I agree the original poster's point on Linux programs *having* to be open source is BS, here's a BS point in your post:

"here are very few of the reasons that people complain.
Vista does indeed boot and get the job done (eventually). It has a little more eye candy - at the expense of having to wait a few extra minutes (which given the speed of the current hardware is unforgivable)."

Vista is not slower than XP, it's actually a bit *faster*. I just bought yet another Vista Business computer (Powerspec B600) for $499, with 1GB of RAM, aP4 running at 3Ghz, and an Intel 945G video chipset. Not a hotrod by any definition.

$500 for a desktop machine is pretty cheap, especially for a business computer. This is the 9'th B600 I've bought for the company.

They are fast, stable, and problem free. Only 2 proprietary vertical market programs we use won't run under Vista, because A) they don't follow MS guidelines (and frankly one of them is utter crap, it uses Paradox 4 as a database), and B) they're both over 7 years old.

At this point I have no trouble finding printer drivers and the users never see UAC prompts while running as standard users.

Vista being slower is simply not true. Period. Note a P4 is a single-core processor, so the Vista machines I have aren't even Core Duo machines! Only 2 of the 9 have 2 GB of RAM, and *ALL* of them are less than $600, the price on these models has dropped $100 since I started buying them.

Having used Vista since a couple of weeks after the retail release, I can tell you all the belly-aching about Vista "problems" is bull. No speed problems, no UAC nagging, no driver scarcity, nada.

If you don't use hardware certified for Vista, it will be slow. But then *so will XP*. $500 buys a computer that can run all the eye candy (Areo) quickly. In fact, computers have been hefty enough for Vista for a couple of years now.

Stop the FUD, think of the children!!!! (laughing)
0 Votes
+ -
Have to disagree...
KNPepper 28th Sep 2007
Based on my experience with Vista, it does indeed run slower than XP on the same hardware. If I strip out all effects and eye candy it's almost as fast (except for the horrendous boot-up time). It also caused us to rewrite our login and file distribution scripts (due to moving/renaming directories and registry keys), and even broke a few key apps. It was about as easy to get Ubuntu and OpenSuse integrated onto our domain, and both run better on the same hardware. We (and I believe many others) will be looking hard at alternative OSes when we are forced off XP.

(And no, I'm not exactly a novice - I have lived & worked with every version of Windows since 1.03)
0 Votes
+ -
The end...
Information_z 29th Sep 2007
... of the upgrade path is in sight for operating systems.

Ten years ago there were many things people wanted changed in their OS (no matter which one they were using). Now there are very few things left that people passionately desire. This left Microsoft changing the desktop and "File Edit View..." command lines to make people think they are getting more than changes under the hood.

Other than having an OS that could run the programs from all of the others interchangeably, there is very little new ground left to break.
0 Votes
+ -
I imagine...
Information_z 29th Sep 2007
...people will pick up 64 bit instruction set versions when they have enough programs that utilize the change...

...who knows maybe a 128 bit version can be made?
0 Votes
+ -
Prophetic
thx-1138_@... 4th Oct 2007
Very insightful.

I tend to agree that the OS as we now know it may reach a *plateau* whereby the developments to current platforms are completely exhausted.

I mean honestly, how much more *tweaking* can developers add to OS models? If we're to be honest, then we'd realise that all the *whistles and bells* that can possibly be added to an operating system have about been done.

I still think the exception would have to be and will remain *system security* - something i'm sure we all agree you can never ever get enough of.

Now there's a novel idea! Maybe MS could just concentrate on Security Apps' over the next 10 years or so - and securing current OS's ... oh, sorry, wishful thinking.
0 Votes
+ -
FUD
jmorgus@... 28th Sep 2007
Your experience is much different than mine. I have a video card (ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 XT) that loses 2/3 of it's funtionality. I needed to download drivers from aTI (Beta version at that) to get decent resolution. Still no TV tuner or Video Capture which, since I render video off a camcorder to convert to DVD, makes the move to Vista a mistake (Back to XP for me).
0 Votes
+ -
Totally agree
pa2004 28th Sep 2007
Vista is faster than XP thanks to the SuperFetch, priority I/O and ReadyBoost technology. With SuperFetch, your pet application will launch lightning fast. With ReadyBoost, insert a 120GB USB 2.0 disk and you get 120G+ RAM! Can Mac or Linux do this?
0 Votes
+ -
Yes Linux can.
Linux User 147560 28th Sep 2007
devil
0 Votes
+ -
Mac can too!
MacGeek2121 3rd Oct 2007
Face it! Microsoft is dated. The writing is on the wall. Microsoft 2008= IBM 1983
0 Votes
+ -
If I had a penny.
rtk 3rd Oct 2007
for every time an NBM'er predicted the death of MS, I'd be as rich as Gates.
0 Votes
+ -
If I had a penny
Ole Man 4th Oct 2007
No, you'd be somewhat less than truthful.

Actually, it sounds as if you already are.

Could I be wrong? Yes!

Could I be right? Yes! Yes! Yes!
0 Votes
+ -
due credit.
rtk 4th Oct 2007
You make no sense better than almost anyone.
0 Votes
+ -
1) SuperFetch= ReadAheadEarly. Been in most versions of Linux for quite a while.
2) ReadyBoost. Similar systems, similar loads: WinXP x64 uses > 2 GB ram, Linux uses 1 GB (never uses the swap file it has).
0 Votes
+ -
You get a swap file
alaniane@... 28th Sep 2007
of 120G. That's not new technology. Since Win 3.1 you could create a swap file on your hard disk. The problem is the speed difference between actual RAM and virtual Ram on either a harddisk or USB drive is significant. One of the reason earlier versions of Windows appeared to lockup or freeze up for a few seconds before refreshing the screen was that it was swapping objects from virtual RAM to actual RAM and vice versa. I have never used a MAC so I can't say whether they use a swapfile, but Linux does.
0 Votes
+ -
are talking about.

I'll post the wikipedia material relevant again here, it's in a prior post as well.



Using ReadyBoost-capable flash memory (NAND memory devices) for caching allows Windows Vista to service random disk reads with performance that is typically 80-100 times faster than random reads from traditional hard drives. This caching is applied to all disk content, not just the page file or system DLLs. Flash devices are typically slower than the hard drive for sequential I/O, so to maximize performance, ReadyBoost includes logic to recognize large, sequential read requests and then allows these requests to be serviced by the hard drive.[2]

When a compatible device is plugged in, the Windows AutoPlay dialog offers an additional option to use the flash drive to speed up the system; an additional "ReadyBoost" tab is added to the drive's properties dialog where the amount of space to be used can be configured.[3] 250 MB to 4 GB of flash memory can be assigned. ReadyBoost encrypts, with AES-128, and compresses all data that is placed on the flash device; Microsoft has stated that a 2:1 compression ratio is typical, so that a 4 GB cache could contain upwards of 8 GB of data.[1]



As you can see, ReadBoost is a technology and not just the "ability to use a flash drive as swap space". This is a common misunderstanding however with the technology being available since early betas i'm surprised there are still many who are unaware of it. I guess people not using Vista, commenting on it, might make that mistake.
0 Votes
+ -
I was actually
alaniane@... 1st Oct 2007
responding to how the above commenter described ReadyBoost. I haven't read the specs on it or used it for that matter. However, the functionality he described was simply a swap file. Also, from what you described the techology is not necessarily new it is just improved to use more recent hardware. DOS had a disk I/O cache utility. I am glad to see that Microsoft has improved that system and adding new features to it that it allows it to make better use of current and future architecture.
0 Votes
+ -
To xunil
alaniane@... 1st Oct 2007
Thank you though for pointing out some more of the benefits of ReadyBoost. It may help in making a decision on whether to upgrade or not.
0 Votes
+ -
sure thing
xuniL_z 1st Oct 2007
but i'll make no claims to testing this and verifying it works as advertised. I don't have a personal vista machine and haven't anymore than played a bit with some going out to users at a site.

My biggest takeaway from my little experience is XP compatibility mode worked perfectly for a very integral non Vista compliant app at the site (hospital's main H.I.S client server system). Can't say but would feel relatively safe saying if a site is holding back due to one or a few apps....try the XP compatibility mode and see if you can move forward. There are a lot of upsides to using Vista over XP the ABM crowd would rather people don't know.
0 Votes
+ -
XUNIL_z do you know *anything*??
stevey_d 1st Oct 2007
The buffer cache in linux constantly buffers bits of files. Parts of the buffer cache *ARE* swapped out to swap space.

You can enable multiple swap spaces in linux, which it organises according to speed.

Here is a paper where performance degradations in Oracle due to swapping out of buffer cache to swap:

http://www.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/mqp/linux-oltp/mqp.pdf

So what you *THINK* is a difference in ReadyBoost isn't a difference at all.
ReadyBoost is no different to Linux Swap.
0 Votes
+ -
Stevey
xuniL_z 2nd Oct 2007
Wonder boy. ReadyBoost is optimized beyond that which Linux is doing. Get your facts straight.
0 Votes
+ -
sure can
Dave32265 28th Sep 2007
where do you think M$ stole this feature and Aero from wink
0 Votes
+ -
Steal?
pa2004 28th Sep 2007
How can you use the word "steal"? If a technology is not copyrighted or patented, everybody can use it freely, right?
0 Votes
+ -
Steal?
Ole Man 29th Sep 2007
" everybody can use it freely, right?"

Of course! That's what "Free Software"
and "Linux" is all about. Anyone can freely
use it, any way they want. Most people don't
realize that even Microsoft uses much Open
Source software. However!..... when someone
sells it as their own and denies the free
use by others, as does Microsoft's EULA,
THAT is known as theft, or piracy. Actually,
it's copyright infringement, but Microsoft
(and many others) choose to call
it "piracy". That gives it a sort of
mysterious serious aura, and makes it seem
more "criminal".
Guess Windows fanbois are soo happy to join the party 10 years late!
0 Votes
+ -
Actually the utilities
alaniane@... 28th Sep 2007
mentioned have been in Windows in one form or another since DOS days. Vista may have renamed them and improved some of the functionality. I have not used Vista so I cannot state what improvements have been made, but harddisk swap files (USB drive is just another type of harddrive) have been in Windows since at least 3.1 (I forget if 3.0 had this feature). And i/o buffering was used in DOS (I think it was called fastdisk, but I forget). As for OS2 many of its features came from when IBM/Microsoft were corroborating on DOS. It was OS2 that led to the falling out between Microsoft and IBM and Microsoft then creating NT.
0 Votes
+ -
BIG problem...
TechinMN 28th Sep 2007
...when you have to hack away at a MS operating system, in order to get administrative tools to work properly in a (gasp) MS networking/AD environment.

In other words, your own posting contains its own BS: it will NOT work properly, without extensive modification, with its OWN networking software. To me, in a business, that's a MAJOR problem (and says a LOT about how well this OS was planned and executed).

As well, when it does not work with OTS web-based financial apps that are used on a regular basis (said apps working just fine on an XP box), I'd say that's a big problem, too.

Which all is sad, considering that Vista works well on stand-alone systems, or in a home network, and is really not that bad of an OS. Bloated, yes. Over-priced, yes. Buggy as heck, yes. But still, not that terrible, though it should be better after all this time and money spent on it. Of course, after gutting out so much of the originally-planned OS, I guess it's inevitable that the final product quality is far below where it should be.

I agree, though: stop the FUD.
0 Votes
+ -
You couldn't be replying to me...
wolf_z 28th Sep 2007
...since my post never mentioned having to hack A/D.

"...when you have to hack away at a MS operating system, in order to get administrative tools to work properly in a (gasp) MS networking/AD environment."

As I'm the admin in our network, I have to wonder what the heck you're talking about. We have a mix of Windows: 2k servers, Win 2003 servers (32 and 64 bit), XP Pro and Vista business desktops. We even have a lone Win98SE machine. At no time have I ever had problems using MS's admin tools. Hell, half the company uses terminal server over the internet. But no problems. At all.

The software I was talking about in my post monitors a few thousand electronic locks, and the other is ADP payroll. Not admin tools.

"In other words, your own posting contains its own BS: it will NOT work properly, without extensive modification, with its OWN networking software."

Not my post. Never mentioned networking software AT ALL, and as I said MS's own admin tools run just fine.

"As well, when it does not work with OTS web-based financial apps that are used on a regular basis (said apps working just fine on an XP box), I'd say that's a big problem, too."

You sure that's not IE7 instead of Vista? And exactly which OTS are you referring to? The CORBA manager? Or:

"The regulatory and supervisory agency for federally chartered savings institutions. Formally known as the "Federal Home Loan Bank Board"?

As for the rest of your post, it's silly. Vista works just fine in an Active Directory domain situaton, I've been using it for months.

Vista's no more bloated than any of the others. As for overpriced, where do you get that? The B600 is $499. You think the computer's $200 and Vista costs $199? OEM it costs around $60. As for buggy, it's far less so than on release, and it wasn't that bad at release.

If you agree about stopping FUD, you really shouldn't FUD happy
0 Votes
+ -
lol @ U vistas slowwwww
masterxtds 28th Sep 2007
wow, you sound like a mac user!

people who think they know as much as us techs but really dont have a damn clue!

The reason your little vista machine seems fast is because your old xp machine was old and bogged down with all the drivers, and other programs you have on it!

The data you accumulate over time will progressivly slow a machine down majorly!!!!!

the vista machine is fast, ok how much disk space is used on both machines and how long has the xp machine been going on the current format?

those are the prodominant factors you should look at!

Because i have been cursed with reverting vista machines back to xp for my clients who were gullable enough to buy it!

yes there paying me to do it as there technician but its still a pain in the ass!

go look at system benchmarks from vista and xp, you will see big differences!

Vista is a resource hog, no butts about it! why the hell do you think they started letting you use flash cards to supplement the swap files, because the ram was loading up much to fast to keep the machine running optimally,

dude get a clue!!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
He won't get it from you.
itpro_z 28th Sep 2007
I am also a tech, and have been for many years. I use XP at work and Vista at home. Will XP be faster on the same hardware than Vista? Of course. Each new OS has additional overhead that will make it require more horsepower to run it, but since the hardware continually improves, that is not a problem. Did you ever try to run XP against 98 or 2000 back when it first appeared? XP has always booted fast, but other than that the older OSs would have outperformed XP on the hardware of the day. XP eventually supported newer hardware, and 98/2000 were left behind. Vista will be the same.

Vista performs well on adequate hardware. Many here are complaining about its performance on XP class hardware, but on a proper machine it runs very well. As for XP, by the time you addon the firewall, internet security suite, etc, its performance drops considerably. Vista doesn't need all of that, as the built in firewall is much improved, so all you really need is a nice small antivirus program (I use Avast). I never really cared for the look of XP, so I ran it in classic mode, which speeded it up quite a bit. Vista can be done the same, but I actually like the new look, and with my hardware, the fancy GUI doesn't slow me down.

Dude, get a clue!!!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
I disagree with the assumption
alaniane@... 28th Sep 2007
that it's alright for OSes to become more and more bloated becuase the hardware keeps getting faster. It's a cop out. Besides to do a true benchmark, you need to compare the machines on comparable equipment. If you run Vista on a 64 bit system and run XP on 32 bit system, then your benchmark is useless.
Eye-candy is alright for the home user or the hobbyist; however, it is not a business value for most businesses. I don't care if my secretary can play solitaire or minesweeper on the computer; I do care that she can do wordprocessing. The only value an OS brings to a business is that it can perform optimally the apps that a business needs to generate profit. Anything else is has no business value.
0 Votes
+ -
Oops
alaniane@... 28th Sep 2007
accidentally typed in "is has" instead of just "has"
0 Votes
+ -
For alaniane
itpro_z 28th Sep 2007
Interesting how you refer to "bloat" when describing Vista, when much of what's new is security related. Is a better firewall bloat? Better security? Better browser? As for the rest, even business users (I am a network admin for a relatively large operation) use video and graphics features now. Besides, the pretty GUI is kind of expected, now, although many of us who have been around for a while could care less. I always ran XP in classic mode, optimized for performance, even on high end machines, because I preferred the classic look and better performance. With Vista, the look isn't so bad, so I have left it running all of the fancy stuff. Even Word and Excel look better that way. Sharper graphics and text make for less eye strain, and especially business users who stare at their screens all day need that. Besides, one of the primary complaints about XP was how it looked.

People keep demanding more. More features, more security, better game play, better graphics, you name it. Then, you turn around and complain about bloat when the OS gets bigger and takes longer to boot. Considering the demands, and the constant attacks, Microsoft hasn't done a bad job with Vista. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than XP? In my opinion, yes, by a considerable margin. Will it get better? Certainly. Will people, especially the ABMers, stop complaining? Ha!
0 Votes
+ -
Actually I was not refering to Vista
alaniane@... 28th Sep 2007
in particular. I was replying to your comment about OSes. I have never run Vista, so I have no comment on whether it is bloated or not. My contention is that to expect a newer OS to become more and more bloated by adding features without improving the underlying OS is selling buyers short. The main reason for a new OS would be to take better advantage of the newer hardware and not just to tack on eye candy. I would expect Microsoft to have at least attempted to improve the actual OS and not just tack on more features. Otherwise, why bother upgrading the OS; just improve the applications that run on the OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Shouldn't feed trolls, but...
wolf_z 28th Sep 2007
You're clueless. happy

I *don't* use Readyboost, never had a need to, and I've been running my Vista machine for months.

Vista's not that bad, resource wise. $500 machines don't have excessive resources, you know. B600's for instance use the bog standard on-board 945G chipset. You know, the *slow* one? happy

It's a P4 for goodness sake, not even a core duo. My XP machine was 2.8GHZ, this one's 3Ghz. The B600 I use has 2GB, but even the 1GB machines aren't noticably slower most of the time.

What has hard drive space got to do with anything? happy To answer your question 12GB (XP) and 44GB (Vista). Note this is applications, data and OS, not OS alone.

My old machine got inherited by someone else. It still runs just fine.

My XP machine wasn't old (well, no more than a year) and the speed difference (while noticable) isn't vast. Oh, and 2.8 vs 3.0 Ghz, so a little of it *is* processor related... wink

Finally, the XP machine is on the *original* format. All the systems here are. I don't bother to reformat XP machines because I know how to maintain XP systems properly. Jeez, it isn't that hard, and it takes next to no time to do.

So you can climb back under your bridge now. Sheesh.
0 Votes
+ -
You should thank your lucky stars
Ole Man 30th Sep 2007
That the trolls do get fed.

Otherwise, you might starve.

Lunch, anyone?
0 Votes
+ -
MOst EXceLLent
catsend 3rd Oct 2007
You are absolutely right.
I have no problems with speed or otherwise on my XP box SP2.
I have been cleaning up computers for longer than I care to admit.
People don't have a clue. Every thing has to be CUTE,or PRETTY
and every tool bar or quicky short cut lead to another bunch of
crap and cookies on your computer.After awhile when all this stuff finally gets up and running,say 5 minutes ,maybe you might get to use your computer for your self,if it doesn't crash.
So if you like more people running your computer switch to Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
No numbers, lots of assertions
Jambalaya Breath 28th Sep 2007
My wife has a faster processor, more ram, a faster HD. But using her machine (by the same OEM) with Vista is visibly slower than using my machine with XP.

Your experience does not match mine ... and yours is the atypical one.
0 Votes
+ -
Not so!
JakeZ 3rd Apr 2009
I've been using MS products since 3.2, actually I began with MS Basic for a while. I've been there through '95, '98, 2000, skipped ME completely [thank God!], & ended with XP. My biggest complaint with Each upgrade has been the inability to use many programs that I relied on before the "upgrade". They threw us a sop called "Compatability Mode" which all too rarely worked as advertised. Here they have not even gotten most of the bugs out of Vista & they are trying out ANOTHER OS, Win7!!!

They must be using the same business model as the automotive industry! Or maybe the one the fashion industry uses! The one that tells women of all ages that they need to lose weight if they actually have an attractive figure, kinda trying to go back to the Twiggy syndrome. That tells you if you are wearing last years clothing that you are no longer attractive or worth listening to.
0 Votes
+ -
It really depends
notsofast 28th Sep 2007
If you're gaming, Vista is, without a doubt, slower. That may change, eventually, but a year after RC2, it's still true (though the gap has narrowed considerably).

OTOH, even on RC2, I didn't find that the Vista was slow in any way shape or form for non gaming. I was running it on an Athlon 64 3000 2GB of ram and an X800XL.

I also ran it on the same hardware with 512KB, and I found it was quite usable even then (though I wasn't doing much heavy lifting with 512mb either.

The bottom line is, that any 500 dollar machine ought to be more than enough power for Vista.

In the end, NONE OF THESE ARE REASONS THAT IT HAS NOT MOVED TO VISTA.

It hasn't moved, because IT never moves during the first year.

Someone said, that the decision was obvious with 2000 to XP? What world is this guy living in? When XP came out most big houses hadn't even moved all PCs to 2000!

If a company has any in house softare, or specialized software, they may have to wait a year or 2 before those applications are made compatible, and even if they aren't they're still going to wait for a SP release and then spend months testing and configuring test machines.

Enthusiasts upgrade quickly. Businesses don't. Anyone who says that XP was an instant hit with business, is completely and utterly FOS.
0 Votes
+ -
to Micropoop. I did the online test thingy and it loved the rest of my machine (C2D E6700, 3-3Gb/s Raid 0, 2 GB DDR-2 800, yadda yadda) but not my $150 Video card which was not more than 6 months old at the time. If Micropoop thinks I am going to spend oodles more money just to have Areo and lots more nagging (UAC), FAHGEDDABOUDDIT! X-D
0 Votes
+ -
It may no be your card...
itpro_z 29th Sep 2007
I am running an ATI X1950 Pro, and get very good performance (5.9 on WE). Your issues might be driver related, since Nvidia's drivers have been pretty crappy. Yours is a pretty low end card, but should be able to give decent performance with Vista. Most users are using onboard video and getting good performance.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista + Nvidia 7600 GS
lh4x4@... 12th Oct 2007
My 7600 GS video card scored 4.1 on my test. But only after I swapped the 300W power supply to a 450W unit. Only a $40 upgrade.

Possibly you should check your power supply.
0 Votes
+ -
Strange Findings
Sheeva 1st Oct 2007
I've set up two "fresh" PCs, fully loaded, with the exact same configurations. I installed each with their own copy (sic) of Vista Ultimate. One PC worked relatively okay, meaning acceptable however, the other PC took forever to load up at start, would crash when apps were launched and overall was very slow in performing. The installs were done identical. My conclusion is that your success or failure rests on the vagaries of Vista itself. I'm suspecting manufacturing/duplication faults. If not then what? Two PCs identical all the way (RAM, Video Card, motherboard, et al, but one is okay and the other not. I'm at a loss.
0 Votes
+ -
Since they are the same...
mrOSX 1st Oct 2007
It would be an interesting test to swap hard drives and see if the problem follows the drive.
0 Votes
+ -
Not scientific
JRLBell 1st Oct 2007
If you want to compare the speed or Windows XP and Windows Vista you have to do it experimentally.

My own "experience" is that, on my AMD 64 4000+ (2.41 Ghz, 3.5 Gb ram) Vista boots and runs applications that run on XP and Vista slower--especially games. Note that both XP and Vista are running 32 bit O/S.

I have this machine as a Vista/XP dual boot so it is fairly easy to compare. Still, this is just anechdotal. There is nothing scientific about my observations. I'm not going to do it but someone should run some tests (probably already been done) on older systems (still within the Vista specs) so that we truely know whether Vista is quicker or slower than XP.

On the other hand, people can't really talk about Vista being quicker (or slower) than XP on systems they've only ran one O/S or the other. It is just too easy to skew the observations towards your O/S of choice.

Personally, I'm not switching to Vista (even on my dual boot) until I have to. It is nice to have so that if someone asks me about Vista I can boot to it and I can see it in front of my face. Otherwise, XP still manages to meet almost every computer need I can think of.

One more thing. On the Linux issue. Other than a lot of the proprietary games, there is not one application type that I can think of that doesn't exist in Linux. Most are pretty easy to install and use. If you don't game and don't have years of experience, exchange issues, etc. that require a Windows based application then I challenge you to name a common computer task for which Linux doesn't have an application.
0 Votes
+ -
Driver availability
PCTechMan 5th Oct 2007
"no driver scarcity"? What closed world are you living in? There's still a lot of cards and peripherals (and I don't mean old ones) that do not have Vista drivers.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is Windows XP too good for Microsoft's own good?
dfwekrdfe2301-24353662930198386032853008779225 12th Nov
wgmdsh,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix