[SPLIT] Windows XP support lifecycle...

[Ultima]

Split from: HERE

OT: Can you believe Microsoft is trying to halt support for XP this year???

No... Their support lifecycle for XP is going to be enormously long by any standard (12.5 years).

[anakin66]

I hope their support cycle will be as you say, Ultima. And I hope they eventually put out a service pack that eliminates Product Activation. I just bought a new Hard Drive and I'm not looking forward to having to type in the insanely long key just to be told it's invalid, then phone Microsoft and get another insanely long key that I have to input as it is dictated to me over the telephone, just because the bloody operating system can't realize that new components don't mean a new computer. They're called system upgrades.

If the addition of the hard drive doesn't do it, I hope to upgrade my ram with another gigabyte in the near future (it's only $27 a gigabyte right now), and one change or the other will result in what I just explained. If they won't sell XP in stores anymore, the Product Activation should go. That's what they claimed they would do long ago when a new OS was released. I've had way too much trouble because of it.

[jewelisheaven]

For the life of me I couldn't find the link to the original article about support terminating this year, 2009 is an extension. In any case Ultima dear, 12.5 years isn't that long at all when you consider the flop that is Vista. As usual you're immensely handy with the links.

Anakin66 yea :/ I'm thinking and HOPING that SSDP article helps you out. The DLL list didn't show anything hooked and seeing the active processes doesn't show anything more than before. More RAM is always nice to have.

[Ultima]

2008 was the original support end date, but changed it to 2009 like... half a year ago (at least). The extended support will be going for another 5 years after normal support ends (and it would've, with or without the delay in the ending of regular support). Just because Vista had a slow start doesn't make 12.5 years any shorter In fact, 2014 will come 7 years after Vista was released -- that's longer than it took for Microsoft to release Vista after XP. Plenty long, if you ask me.

I might have been jaded by my first few attempts at using Vista, but I'm still hoping that Microsoft can fix the outstanding issues with it some time. Everyone said XP sucked when it first came out, but apparently, everyone's hanging onto it for dear life now ;D

[anakin66]

I think the problem isn't that XP doesn't still suck, but that the fears and the price of Vista make it the lesser of two evils (and it is evil... Dum De Dum Dum Dummm...). Does anyone know if the following few tidbits of information are true?

First: If you purchase an upgrade version of Vista, do you still have to install XP before installing Vista rather than just providing the Windows XP disc to verify you have it? That becomes an awfully lengthy installation process if you have to reformat or re-install far any reason.

Second: Is it true that if you use an upgrade version, it will disable the key for your version of Windows XP upon installation of Vista to prevent you from using your version of XP either on a new computer or as a second operating system on the ame machine? I read several people say this when Vista was released, but urban legends can apply to software too I guess. Anyone actually know the answer?

Last: Is it true that the more expensive the version of Vista you buy, the more half-open connections it will allow? I read that Vista Basic supports something like 5 or 10 half-open connections, Premium supports 25, and Ultimate supports something like 50? Is this true, or more badmouthing of Vista? If it is true, it's almost like Microsoft is saying it is okay to use torrents as long as you are willing to pay them protection money by purchasing the more expensive versions of Vista. If it is true, that's a new low, even for Satan (Bill Gates).

Man, I wish IBM, HP, Dell, and the other computer manufacturers would co-operate to produce a cheaper and better operating system. And please, no one bring up Linux. Linux would be fine if the big computer manufacturers would start pushing it and ensuring software could be purchased readily in stores.

Remember, Microsoft came out with DOS, but IBM had its own, nearly identical version called PC DOS. They missed the boat when Windows came out by not challenging it with something comparable. Right now, I suspect that Microsoft's popularity is at an all-time low.

Incompatability with their own older software, especially anything using DirectX, and charging as much or more for Operating System software than the microprocessors needed to run it should have painted a huge target on Microsoft's back and opened up the market for a new competitor to finally enter the fray on a serious basis. No one can tell me it wouldn't benefit computer manufacturers to have a viable alternative to Microsoft. Of all the garbage they build into their operating systems, how much does anyone actually use?

But no pressure.

[Ultima]

Windows XP doesn't really suck, IMO. But then again, my needs/demands may differ from other people's. As much junk as they include in their OS, you're not forced to use it all, and they can often be disabled/removed. At any rate, what's trash to one person may be treasure to another. It might not be literally true for Windows components, but the point is that even if you find something useless/pointless, someone else might find some use in it. Since Windows is a general-purpose OS, they have to choose defaults that a large number of people might use, so installing many/most of the components makes sense from that POV.

I don't want to keep sticking up for Microsoft here, but I think you should really be commending Microsoft for keeping backwards compatibility going for as long as they have. They try to break as few things as possible between versions of Windows, but there has to be some tradeoffs along the way if they need to change the OS drastically. I like backwards compatibility as much as the next person, but if it's really stunting software growth, I'd ditch it.

Apple wasn't afraid to break backwards compatibility between Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.4, and I don't really see people complaining about that. Maybe Microsoft spoiled everyone?

Man, I wish IBM, HP, Dell, and the other computer manufacturers would co-operate to produce a cheaper and better operating system. And please, no one bring up Linux. Linux would be fine if the big computer manufacturers would start pushing it and ensuring software could be purchased readily in stores.

Why not bring up Linux...? It's a fair OS that's cheaper than Windows. As you said, one of the big problems is that it's not used widely enough for proprietary software developers to create software for it (that, and the fact that things are a big mish-mash in Linux with regards to dependencies/libraries, software packages, and the likes), but if computer manufacturers started pushing Linux (Dell did move in that direction with Ubuntu, by the way), maybe development for Linux would further accelerate.

In the end, if someone didn't unify computing like Microsoft did with Windows, I'm not sure the home computer would be as developed as it is now. I've no evidence to back that statement up though; it's just a "probably" kind of thought.

No, I don't work for Microsoft, am not a fanboy, and don't necessarily agree with everything they've done. I just respect their work on their flagship product, as many problems as it may have xD

As for your questions...

1) The upgrade version of Vista can upgrade... itself IIRC, you can install the upgrade without a product key, and without activating it, then clean install again using that unactivated install as the base OS that you're upgrading from.

2) Yeah, I think it's true, but you can probably work around it with the upgrade workaround (don't quote me on this one).

3) I think it isn't true; all SKUs of Vista should (as far as I remember) have a 10 half-open connection limit.

[anakin66]

I'm all for Linux, though I have never used it, if the big computer manufacturers would start pushing software producers to start supporting it. If they began supplying a copy of Linux as well as Windows (perhaps two hard drives each partitioned differently), I would think that would be a good way to get software manufacturers interested. Linux is cheap (free technically), so that might be an option.

[Ultima]

Just stuffing Linux on the computers doesn't help matters much. In all likelihood, PC manufacturers wouldn't provide support for it in such a scenario, and consequently, many users wouldn't touch it (they'll go for something more familiar and supported). Linux needs to be placed as a first-class citizen in order for it to really get moving.

[anakin66]

Still, there should be some alternative to Windows, especially when backwards compatability is being sacrificed, and prices continue to increase. And the fact that you just shot down my idea about including Linux so quickly (it's not a criticism, just a fact) a reason why I asked Linux not be brought up. And because every time I mention the need for an alternative to Windows to bring in competition and fair prices, someone immediately brings up Linux, and I use the same tired argument that you can't purchase it or software for it in stores to any noticable degree. In fact it is completely absent in my area (Nova Scotia).

Likewise, as soon as I mentioned including a dual boot operating system (after all, big box stores sell systems from $500 to $2500, so an extra hundred dollars for a second hard drive, which some companies are already including anyway, would be quite simple on the higher end systems. SATA drives have simplified things), you bring up the valid point that Linux needs to be main streamed to have any effect. However, if people started being exposed to an alternative in a dual boot environment, and companies like IBM started pushing for software (remember there would be no Microsoft had IBM not backed it), companies could then start giving people the option of paying less for non-Windows systems.

On a lighter note, the Chronicle Herald (the main local newspaper in Nova Scotia) reported that on Feb 27th, the EU fined Microsoft a record $1.3 BILLION for violating the terms of their 2004 antitrust settlement. I'm sure the details can also be found online. It brings a smile to my face.

For those clinging to Windows XP for dear life, and willing to take a chance, I understand the long awaited Service Pack 3 is finally available, but only as a Release Candidate (try at your own risk). A google search, or Microsoft website search should turn up a link for the daring. I'll wait until the tested pack is released. I see it is huge, something like 500 MB. There should be a feature built in to slipstream (combine) the original Operating System disc together with the new service pack onto a single DVD, but that would require common sense, so I'm sure it will never happen with a Microsoft release.

By the way, here's a link to an article about the half-open connection limitations on the various Windows Vista versions: http://blog.davidkaspar.com/archives/2005/04/windows-xp-sp2-and-event-id-4226.php and another one at: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/04/09/windows-vista-tcpipsys-connection-limit-patch-for-event-id-4226/ They say the Limit ranges from 2 for Vista Basic (yes TWO) to 25 for Vista Ultimate. I wish I could find something by someone like PC magazine. They would know for certain.

Regardless, it seems like things are getting worse, not better, but as you said, Ultima, everyone has different needs. I guess I'll buy an OEM version of Vista Premium with a new CPU and Mainboard when the day comes that I must, and quit my bitching. Well, half of that was true. Not the bitching part, but it's just my opinion. Other people probably love Microsoft, despite the price, product activation nonsense, the lack of product support unless you pay for it (that's not even an option with the OEM versions), and the price of software like Microsoft Office just to get a stupid wordprocessor. I'm done. Have a good one everybody.