Why XP must be saved

Discussion in 'Green Room' started by Heeter, Jan 27, 2008.

  1. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    Why XP must be saved
    The costs are too high and the benefits too low to be forced to switch to Vista

    By Galen Gruman

    January 14, 2008

    The clock is ticking: Microsoft will end OEM and shrink-wrapped sales of Windows XP on June 30, 2008, forcing users to shift to Vista. (System builders, meaning those who do white-box PCs, can sell XP through December 31.) Don't let that happen!

    Millions of us have grown comfortable with XP and don't see a need to change to Vista. It's like having a comfortable apartment that you've enjoyed coming home to for years, only to get an eviction notice. The thought of moving to a new place -- even with the stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, and maple cabinets (or is cherry in this year?) -- just doesn't sit right. Maybe it'll be more modern, but it will also cost more and likely not be as good a fit. And you don't have any other reason to move. That's exactly the conclusion people have come to with Vista. For most of us, there's really no reason to move to it -- yet we don't have a choice. When that strong desire to stick with XP became obvious in spring 2007, major computer makers such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard quietly reintroduced new XP-based systems (but just to business customers, so as not to offend Microsoft).

    But come June 30, even that option goes away. (See InfoWorld's live XP countdown clock. To use this clock on your own Web site, please e-mail Executive Editor Galen Gruman for the code snippet.)

    So what to do? Let Microsoft decide where your personal and enterprise software "lives"? Or send a loud and clear message that you don't want to move?

    We're going for the loud-and-clear option. Join us, and tell Microsoft that you want to keep XP available indefinitely. Not for another six months or a year, but indefinitely. Sign InfoWorld's petition today. And consider submitting a "Save XP" video to our site to help spread the word.

    And ask your friends and colleagues to join in, too. Just point them to SaveXP.com.

    Don't think Microsoft will listen? Consider this: Although Microsoft denies that anything is wrong with Vista or that most people don't want it, the company has already postponed XP's demise by six months. That's a start, but it's not good enough.

    Microsoft doesn't have to admit failure; it can just say it will keep XP available indefinitely due to customer demand. It can take that opportunity to try again with a better Vista, or just move on to the next version that maybe this time we'll all actually want.

    There is a precedent for that, too: In many respects, Vista is like the Windows Millennium Edition that was meant to replace Windows 98 in 2000 but caused more trouble than it was worth. At that time, Windows 2000 was promising but didn't support a lot of hardware, so users were stuck between two bad choices. Without admitting Millennium's failure, Microsoft quietly put Windows 98 back on the market until the fixed version of Windows 2000 (SP1) was available. Microsoft needs to do something like that again today.

    Make your voice heard to Microsoft. Sign our petition to save XP today. We will present it to Microsoft.

    For more on why Vista isn't the right replacement for XP, check out InfoWorld's analyses:
    The (post-SP1) Vista verdict: Wait for Windows 7
    Randall Kennedy's assessment is that for the vast majority of enterprise IT shops, Vista is not -- and likely never will be -- the right choice for their immediate desktop computing needs.

    Service pack vs. service pack: XP SP3 beats Vista SP1
    According to tests by Devil Mountain Software comparing the release candidates for the last Windows XP service pack and the first Vista service pack, XP SP3 performs twice as fast as Vista SP1 on the same machine -- and slower than the initial release of the Vista OS as well.

    Businesses having second thoughts about Vista
    Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago, according to a survey by patch management vendor PatchLink.

    Forrester: Businesses still saying no to Vista
    An anticipated rush by businesses to adopt Windows Vista hasn't materialized as IT managers stick with familiar systems and wait for the release of Vista Service Pack 1.

    Microsoft: Vista follow-up likely in 2009
    With Vista just out the door, Microsoft is now drawing up plans to deliver its follow-up client operating system by the end of 2009.

    Farewell Vista, hello XP
    From PCWorld.com: How to make the switch back and deal with the gnarly problem of transferring your Vista e-mail, contacts, and user data back to the old standby operating system.

    HP CEO: Vista never had its moment in 2007
    From CIO.com: Wondering what's happened to momentum for Microsoft's Vista operating system in corporate America? Fact is, enterprise IT has continued to decline the Vista plate like it's an undercooked holiday casserole. Listen to what Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd said: HP never saw a "Vista moment at any time over the past year."

    UK government report: Don’t upgrade to Vista
    Report warns British schools not to upgrade to Microsoft's Vista OS and Office 2007 suite, and to avoid Microsoft's OOXML document format because of compatibility concerns.

    http://www.cio.com/article/176150/Why_Save_XP_Infoworld_Readers_Speak_Out

    http://reg.itworld.com/servlet/Frs....080114&Source_BC=13&Script=/LP/80276783/reg&"

    Heeter
     
    tdinc likes this.
  2. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    There is nothing more annoying that anti-vista propaganda.

    If you don't want to use it, don't. :)
     
  3. j79zlr

    j79zlr Glaanies script monkey Political User

    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Chicago
    Yea, I mean why should anyone actually make an informed decision? Everyone knows that microsoft's PR department never lies or spreads false information. Consumers should just take everything at face value and upgrade already, geez.
     
  4. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    Sazar, I did not write this, just posting what I find while scouring da net on my free time.

    I personally think that this is not propaganda, it is just people that are frustrated that MS is forcing their heavy hand onto people/businesses.

    That is why this is sitting in the Green Room.


    Heeter
     
  5. tdinc

    tdinc █▄█ ▀█▄ █ Political User

    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    Sterling Heights, MICHIGAN
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2008
  6. Geffy

    Geffy Moderator Folding Team

    Messages:
    7,805
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Weren't 98 and ME still available for a while after XP started shipping? If I remember correctly XP didn't exactly take the world by storm and certainly had its fair share of detractors. It took at least a year or for XP to become truely main stream.

    The only thing thats really putting me off getting Vista for my windows partition is the cost of the package.
     
  7. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    I don't think that's an accurate memory geffy, everything I remember is everyone was dying to get xp, it had a stability history since everyone knew it was windows 2000

    not too many people didn't like xp, there were a few but that percentage was pretty small by comparison to vista

    vista is not new technology over xp it's the same operating system re written with more interface..that's it

    xp was new technology over 98
     
  8. Terrahertz

    Terrahertz Extinction Agenda Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    New York
    Well said.
     
  9. Evil Marge

    Evil Marge I Rule Political User

    Messages:
    6,574
    The first pc we bought was when XP was still new and eveyone was saying "oh you don't want XP it's rubbish, nothing works on it, it's crap, don't waste your money blah blah blah" We bit the bullet anyway and were very happy with it.

    Last year I decided I wanted a laptop and people were saying "oh you don't want Vista it's rubbish, nothing works on it, it's crap, don't waste your money blah blah blah". Again I bit the bullet after seeing the laptop I wanted and I'm very happy with it.
    Everything I use on our XP machine I've put on this Vista machine and all is running smooooooooooooooooothly.

    Whatever you or I use is personal choice, those "you shouldn't do this,you should do that" people need to do what they do and let me do the same.
     
  10. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    right on sista!
     
  11. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732

    Good point, Oh evil one,

    The articles point to the business deployment side of Vista and, very unlike XP, is a very high TCO and very high hardware intensive as well.

    I don't really read anything about bashing Vista being a standalone home OS in the article. A few do point out that their own personal machines are vista and is working out okay with it.


    Heeter
     
  12. fitz

    fitz Just Floating Along Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,076
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Vista certainly has it's share of issues right now.. more so that what I remember when XP came out..

    I believe in the end, the market will swing towards Vista as mainstream over XP (Personally, I think it's at or near a tipping point now anyway).

    .. on a side note.. Maybe I should change my sig to "Marge makes my buttocks tingle.." but people might read too much into that.. ;) :p :rolleyes:
     
  13. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    Why is it annoying? Because it does not fit well with your personal believes?

    At the university I currently go to we have the following machines:

    Gateway systems with:

    Core 2 Duo running at 2.4 Ghz
    4 GB of ram
    7200 RPM SATA Seagate Barracuda hard drives
    Some nvidia graphics card with 512 MB of ram.

    They run the current game development suites and other software flawlessly, not a single problem. Since IT's hand is being forced to switch to Vista (we are after all a technology school, and we have to stay current) they started extensively testing the software that was now running on Windows XP with Windows Vista, filing bug reports with the manufacturers of the software and whatnot.

    So after a while they got decent performance out of the same hardware, until they let students lose on the systems to find any flaws. The biggest flaw is that rendering using a piece of rendering software (which WAS updated to the Vista edition) was about 3x slower than on Windows XP, meaning it was going to take students 3x times as long to get their work done. Also, problem started to show up in certain game engines with regards to modelling and making maps. Where on Vista the system would lag horribly when zooming in and moving objects around, while on XP it was smooth and flawless.

    So now, because of HAVING to switch to Vista (not even because of Microsoft), my university has to buy 90+ new work stations with the following specs:

    Quad core Intel processors
    4 GB's of RAM
    7200 RPM SATA Seagate Barracuda hard drives
    Nvidia graphics card with 768 MB of ram onboard

    Now the speed for rendering, and the designing of levels and modelling is slightly faster than with Windows XP on the old machines. Windows XP running on that hardware would beat the socks off Vista.

    The reason the university is forcing the switch to Vista is because Microsoft has said it is going to EOL Windows XP, and they don't want to be using Windows XP when all the new students that are incoming will have used Windows Vista.
     
  14. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    Yes, that's exactly correct. It doesn't fit my personal beliefs.

    This has less to do with Vista and more to do with either the game engine or the driver that Nvidia have made.

    Just re-read what you have written. As a programmer, you should be coming to a different conclusion than you are.

    Just because something is compatible it doesn't mean it has been optimized to run correctly.

    Recall when Nvidia first released drivers for Vista, performance was abysmal and remained so for over 6 months. Look further at games developed with dx9 extensions v/s dx10 extensions. There is a further performance gap. At least your cards are moving from dx9 to dx10. If the render engine is using dx10 components (and I assume that there is some testing to facilitate this) there will be a performance discrepancy.
     
  15. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    I just upgraded from Mac OS X Tiger to Mac OS X Leopard. During this upgrade I did not lose any previous functionality and speed, and I gained a whole bunch of new features. Some previous things that ran slower, now run faster. Same thing happened when I went from Mac OS X Panther to Mac OS X Tiger.

    There is no reason why the same software, should run any slower. Both the graphics card in the older computer and the newer computer are DX 10 compatible. They were bought with Vista in mind at the time the purchase was made.

    The rendering is done using a piece of software that splits the load out over all the machines in the same network. It is CPU intensive and does not use the graphics card at all, yet it runs 3x slower on Vista than XP.

    I am sorry, but there should not be such a big speed discrepancy between the two.

    Also, since only DirectX 9 is available on Windows XP, and DirectX 10 is available on Vista, would that not mean that the game can take advantage of more the graphics card has to offer and thus it should run faster? Other games that are written for DirectX 9 should run at the same speed on both Windows XP and Vista. Right? Since there should be no changes to the interface they both use. It is still the same graphics card, and still the same everything, except the OS. That is the only thing that changed. You see where I am going with that? The OS is at fault. That is called a regression. And testing should have been done for that at Microsoft.
     
  16. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    Hey, fancy that. I did the same thing with Vista and amazingly enough, everything worked fine, I didn't lose speed or functionality and I gained a whole bunch of new features. :smoker:

    I agree. And since I didn't see a model number for the graphics card, I guessed what you had before and seeing the memory capacity on the newer card, presumed it was a g80 based product.

    Considering that the G8x based cards debuted with 320, 640 and 768 MB of memory, I therefore assumed that the 512MB card you were talking about was likely a g7x part. The g7x cards were dx9 including the Quadro's.

    This is really weird since Vista is designed to allow multi-threaded applications and cpu intensive applications to run better. I know that things run faster and smoother on my system, especially with regards to video encoding (multi-threaded application) than it did on XP which wasn't as efficient with multithreaded applications (at least the ones I used).

    Again, based on my understanding of the operating systems, especially on a product you are splitting the workload over many systems on, I am assuming that there are issues with optimizations.

    There can be if there is an issue with the coding.

    They run pretty close, dx9 games on vista v/s xp typically had a 10% difference in performance but as game developers and graphics card makers have optimized their products and drivers, the performance is typically a wash for both o/s's now. There are still games that have a difference in performance but they are few and far between. Some perform faster on Vista but most, especially the slightly older ones are equal or faster on XP by 10% or less.
     
  17. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    The speed difference is definitely noticeable. Hell, you say no speed or functionality lost. Yet on my P4 2.4 Ghz, with an ATI x800 I definitely lost a whole lot of speed. So either you lose some, or you stay even. Vista definitely means lose a lot.

    Sounds about right. I did not list the model numbers as I don't know, I just remember the ram sizes.

    If Vista is supposed to be more efficient, then the un-modified and thus Windows XP tested application should have ran faster without having to change anything about the program itself. Right or wrong? For example, in FreeBSD they switched to a different threading library. Old applications take advantage of this new speed increase for free. How come that is not so with Windows?

    How can coding be the issue if Windows Vista supposedly optimised for threading. That should be a free performance gain, especially if system libraries were updated. The application developer should have to do absolutely nothing to take advantage of this gain. See again about FreeBSD. FreeBSD 7, new threading library, instant advantage.

    Then why are we seeing such varied results? If Vista is supposedly better with multimedia applications why are we seeing such slow downs?

    Thinking about it, I have only seen OS's get faster with each upgrade I have done. Software wise.

    Mac OS X panther -> Mac OS X Tiger on my iBook G4 with 1 Ghz CPU, and 512 MB of ram increased the speed greatly, and allowed for a snappier OS.

    Mac OS X Tiger -> Mac OS X Leopard on my iBook G4, the OS once again feels snappier. Sure, it can't take advantage of the neat visual effects in the OS, but it is a speed improvement.

    Mac OS X Tiger -> Mac OS X Leopard on my MacBook Pro. This was definitely a big upgrade. Not that much change in responsiveness of the system, but definitely an upgrade with regards to how applications are run, how quick the system reacts to certain input, and the new features offered are awesome.

    FreeBSD 5 -> FreeBSD 6 on my P1 133 Mhz with 64 MB of ram. Since the threading library has partially been replaced, threaded applications breathe easier. Less RAM is used, and performance is increased, with regards to responsiveness since less of the kernel is locked at all times while performing certain functions.

    FreeBSD 6 -> FreeBSD 7 on my 700 Mhz PIII with 256 MB of ram. Can anyone say Wow? xfce feels smoother, and the new scheduler definitely provides some new found love for the desktop. Even under heavy load the system stays responsive.

    Windows XP -> Windows Vista on my P4 2.4 Ghz, 2 GB of ram, ATI X800. First thing I notice is that Vista takes forever to boot up. Once booted and logged in everything seems okay, until I open up a few windows and the visual effects start the computer to lag. I turn off the Visual effects and go back to an XP kind of look. I start a game, check what FPS I am getting. An abysmal 10 fps if that. The game is unbearable to play.

    Windows Vista -> Windows XP on that same P4. Wow, the game is back up to its usual 60 fps, the visual effects don't lag anything, and it boots within 30 seconds. Games are bearable again, and FireFox again seems it's happy self.

    Now don't tell me my hardware is old. That does not matter. Every release of any other OS I have run has always come out with new speed improvements, even for older hardware. That iBook is now almost 4 years old.

    I think Windows XP will have to have it's EOL extended beyond what it already is. The company my dad works at, Hoffman-la-Roche Pharmaceuticals, upgraded from Windows NT 4 to Windows XP at the end of 2005. They will probably not upgrade for another few years just because of the support and maintenance nightmare it creates. That being said, it took Microsoft about two months to fully stabilise the network at Roche because of the upgrades.
     
  18. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    This is my last post on the subject. We shall have to agree to disagree. I have spent too much time on this topic and the other topic. Time that I should have spent writing papers for school.
     
  19. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    I have no idea honestly.

    I have run XP and Vista (and ubuntu feisty and gutsy) on my desktop and the first 2 o/s's on my notebook and I have not experienced any slowdown. And I use my systems for a lot of work and if you have seen my posts over the years, I am all about speed.

    I don't know, honestly. I know there are changes in the way applications are handled and there are differences in the way priorities are set and I also know that video editing with the same applications under XP was much slower for me. Gaming is a wash and general usage seems to be faster for me on a daily basis. Given that I am using Vista at home and in the office in the region of 100+ hours a week, it is critical that it does what I need it to in an expedient manner.


    That really depends. Not all products are coded the same way. In a perfect, modular world, yes, this would be the case. Since Vista is not designed solely using XP code, there are bound to be differences. You are comparing apples to oranges.

    I don't know. My hypothesis based on what you said is that there is an issue with the way the application is taking advantage of the operating system. Definitely keep us posted on what you guys find out as you continue development.

    Thinking about it, I have only seen OS's get faster with each upgrade I have done. Software wise.

    Again, I don't know.

    I am personally not doing anything different and I have yet to have any "OMG" moments with slow-downs. My notebook uses a relatively old setup and I am able to use AERO fully and without slowdowns, with an IGP mind you, across a minimum of 15-20 windows and 2 displays every day. My desktop is an X2 4400, sckt 939 and I had no issues with my old x800 or my current 1950xtx. And remember, I am running F@H in the background on my desktop.

    There is just no way that I, doing nothing special, am able to experience none of the nightmares on 2 completely different systems, being used to the max, that you are bringing up.

    Out of curiosity, what game is it that you are experiencing FPS issues in?
     
  20. j79zlr

    j79zlr Glaanies script monkey Political User

    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ok, so Sazar doesn't know anything apparently yet he kicks and screams everytime someone says anything bad about Vista. So why are you the authority having jurisdiction here?