Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7
 

As the world's most prominent operating system, Windows has dominated
the tech industry for well over a decade and its competitors - Mac OS X
and Linux - have failed to gain the kind of penetration Microsoft has.

But ever since the days of Windows 98, we have been forced to deal with
a slew of Windows issues that have plagued individuals and companies
alike. Instead of being the highly intuitive operating system Mac OS X
is, Windows became bloated and difficult to use. Instead of offering
sound functionality and customizability like Linux, Windows became quite
the opposite.


To make matters worse, malicious hackers and spammers started developing
a slew of attacks that proved deadly to Windows systems. Responding too
late, Microsoft has allowed the security issue to become such a concern
that some have migrated to other operating systems. And who can blame
them? With Microsoft doing very little to protect them, the decision
seemed quite simple.

But for all of its issues, Windows XP was still a relatively reliable
operating system after Service Pack 2 was released. Once installed, SP2
offered the kind of functionality and security that we had hoped for and
although there were still security concerns, the operating system worked
much better than any of its predecessors and finally made sense for
businesses and individuals alike.

And just when XP was at its height, Microsoft decided to drop Windows
Vista on us, claiming "The wow was now." Sadly, the company failed to
realize that the only "wow" coming out of most people's mouths was
followed by something like, "what a crappy operating system."

In essence, Vista is nothing more than a pretty OS that loses any sense
of reliability and reignites that uneasy feeling I got when using XP
SP1. Of course, Microsoft doesn't agree.

According to the company, Vista was designed with security, good looks
and functionality in mind. Instead of being an XP clone, Vista has the
fine looks of Mac OS X and the usefulness we had come to expect from its
predecessor. Sadly, the marketing team must have missed the memo because
I haven't experienced anything of the sort.

Let's face it - Windows Vista is junk in almost every sense of the word.
Sure, it's better looking than XP and I like the Windows Aero interface,
but what really matters is how well the operating system performs at the
tasks we ask of it. And so far, it has failed miserably.


How many times have you used Vista only to find out that it's basically
the same bloated operating system with awkward warnings and crazy dialog
boxes? Vista is easily the most annoying operating system I have ever used.


Just last week, I tried to install a Microsoft software package. After
going through all the rigmarole of validating my copy and making sure
Microsoft knows what I'm doing is legit, the operating system's new User
Access Control, which was ostensibly installed to safe guard me, asked
me five times if I wanted to install the program and if I had initiated
the process.


Once I got through that annoyance, I sat there and waited for the
program to install and watched as my brand-new operating system on a
high-end PC slowed to a crawl trying to perform a simple task. Of
course, that issue isn't just found during installation; the restart
times are ridiculous and the chances of getting something done in a
reasonable amount of time are all but lost. Simply put, Vista is
brutally slow.

And yet, none of these issues are experienced in XP. Aside from being
asked once if I want to install something, XP boots up in a jiffy and
works just as I had hoped it would.

But in true Microsoft fashion, the company wants to stop licensing
Windows XP to OEMs by June 30. According to the company, it's time we
move on from XP and join the Vista world. It makes sense from a business
standpoint - Microsoft spent millions developing Vista and it wants to
cash in on its investment. But what about those of us who don't want to
move to the junker? What if we want to stick it out with the tried and
true XP?

Even worse, after releasing XP Service Pack 3, I really don't see a
reason to switch. SP3 included all of the added security benefits of
owning Vista and did so without slowing the OS down or making it
annoying to use. In other words, the better OS just got better.

Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After
trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the
organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to
manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores
and businesses that were loath to switch.

In response, the company has already started the propaganda machine for
Windows 7 - Vista's follow-up - and told the world just how "special" it
will be. But to me, it looks like a desperate move.

Instead of telling us how it will fix Vista and make it a worthwhile
product, it's as if Microsoft wants us to believe that the operating
system is a bridge to greatness and we should swallow our reservations
and walk across that bridge because the pleasure will surely be worth
the pain.

What a crock. Instead of wasting our time with hope for the future,
Microsoft should keep XP alive until Windows 7 and allow the users to
choose which software they want to use. At this point, Microsoft needs
to realize that consumers want reliability and hate the thought of being
forced into another crappy product. And although monetary concerns are
obviously a factor for the company, just how much money will Microsoft
lose if people realize how poor of an operating system Vista really is
and they switch to competing platforms without ever taking a look back?

Trust me, allowing XP to stay available is good for all parties involved.

Don Reisinger is a freelance technology columnist that has covered
everything from Google to Apple. With hundreds of columns to his credit
and millions of readers each month, you can find his unique opinionated
style on CNET, Computerworld, InformationWeek, ITworld and many others.
For more information, visit his homepage at donreisinger.com.

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/win...sta-dr-080218/

Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7
 

Given all that, I hear Vista is good for Solitaire, as long as you take a
reasonable amount of time to decide what to do next.



On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

As the world's most prominent operating system, Windows has dominated
the tech industry for well over a decade and its competitors - Mac OS X
and Linux - have failed to gain the kind of penetration Microsoft has.

But ever since the days of Windows 98, we have been forced to deal with
a slew of Windows issues that have plagued individuals and companies
alike. Instead of being the highly intuitive operating system Mac OS X
is, Windows became bloated and difficult to use. Instead of offering
sound functionality and customizability like Linux, Windows became quite
the opposite.


To make matters worse, malicious hackers and spammers started developing
a slew of attacks that proved deadly to Windows systems. Responding too
late, Microsoft has allowed the security issue to become such a concern
that some have migrated to other operating systems. And who can blame
them? With Microsoft doing very little to protect them, the decision
seemed quite simple.

But for all of its issues, Windows XP was still a relatively reliable
operating system after Service Pack 2 was released. Once installed, SP2
offered the kind of functionality and security that we had hoped for and
although there were still security concerns, the operating system worked
much better than any of its predecessors and finally made sense for
businesses and individuals alike.

And just when XP was at its height, Microsoft decided to drop Windows
Vista on us, claiming "The wow was now." Sadly, the company failed to
realize that the only "wow" coming out of most people's mouths was
followed by something like, "what a crappy operating system."

In essence, Vista is nothing more than a pretty OS that loses any sense
of reliability and reignites that uneasy feeling I got when using XP
SP1. Of course, Microsoft doesn't agree.

According to the company, Vista was designed with security, good looks
and functionality in mind. Instead of being an XP clone, Vista has the
fine looks of Mac OS X and the usefulness we had come to expect from its
predecessor. Sadly, the marketing team must have missed the memo because
I haven't experienced anything of the sort.

Let's face it - Windows Vista is junk in almost every sense of the word.
Sure, it's better looking than XP and I like the Windows Aero interface,
but what really matters is how well the operating system performs at the
tasks we ask of it. And so far, it has failed miserably.


How many times have you used Vista only to find out that it's basically
the same bloated operating system with awkward warnings and crazy dialog
boxes? Vista is easily the most annoying operating system I have ever used.


Just last week, I tried to install a Microsoft software package. After
going through all the rigmarole of validating my copy and making sure
Microsoft knows what I'm doing is legit, the operating system's new User
Access Control, which was ostensibly installed to safe guard me, asked
me five times if I wanted to install the program and if I had initiated
the process.


Once I got through that annoyance, I sat there and waited for the
program to install and watched as my brand-new operating system on a
high-end PC slowed to a crawl trying to perform a simple task. Of
course, that issue isn't just found during installation; the restart
times are ridiculous and the chances of getting something done in a
reasonable amount of time are all but lost. Simply put, Vista is
brutally slow.

And yet, none of these issues are experienced in XP. Aside from being
asked once if I want to install something, XP boots up in a jiffy and
works just as I had hoped it would.

But in true Microsoft fashion, the company wants to stop licensing
Windows XP to OEMs by June 30. According to the company, it's time we
move on from XP and join the Vista world. It makes sense from a business
standpoint - Microsoft spent millions developing Vista and it wants to
cash in on its investment. But what about those of us who don't want to
move to the junker? What if we want to stick it out with the tried and
true XP?

Even worse, after releasing XP Service Pack 3, I really don't see a
reason to switch. SP3 included all of the added security benefits of
owning Vista and did so without slowing the OS down or making it
annoying to use. In other words, the better OS just got better.

Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After
trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the
organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to
manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores
and businesses that were loath to switch.

In response, the company has already started the propaganda machine for
Windows 7 - Vista's follow-up - and told the world just how "special" it
will be. But to me, it looks like a desperate move.

Instead of telling us how it will fix Vista and make it a worthwhile
product, it's as if Microsoft wants us to believe that the operating
system is a bridge to greatness and we should swallow our reservations
and walk across that bridge because the pleasure will surely be worth
the pain.

What a crock. Instead of wasting our time with hope for the future,
Microsoft should keep XP alive until Windows 7 and allow the users to
choose which software they want to use. At this point, Microsoft needs
to realize that consumers want reliability and hate the thought of being
forced into another crappy product. And although monetary concerns are
obviously a factor for the company, just how much money will Microsoft
lose if people realize how poor of an operating system Vista really is
and they switch to competing platforms without ever taking a look back?

Trust me, allowing XP to stay available is good for all parties involved.

Don Reisinger is a freelance technology columnist that has covered
everything from Google to Apple. With hundreds of columns to his credit
and millions of readers each month, you can find his unique opinionated
style on CNET, Computerworld, InformationWeek, ITworld and many others.
For more information, visit his homepage at donreisinger.com.

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/win...sta-dr-080218/




--
John H

Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7
 

Get a life. What makes you think rec.boats is the place for your tirade
against microsoft? Loser.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
As the world's most prominent operating system, Windows has dominated the
tech industry for well over a decade and its competitors - Mac OS X and
Linux - have failed to gain the kind of penetration Microsoft has.

But ever since the days of Windows 98, we have been forced to deal with a
slew of Windows issues that have plagued individuals and companies alike.
Instead of being the highly intuitive operating system Mac OS X is,
Windows became bloated and difficult to use. Instead of offering sound
functionality and customizability like Linux, Windows became quite the
opposite.


To make matters worse, malicious hackers and spammers started developing a
slew of attacks that proved deadly to Windows systems. Responding too
late, Microsoft has allowed the security issue to become such a concern
that some have migrated to other operating systems. And who can blame
them? With Microsoft doing very little to protect them, the decision
seemed quite simple.

But for all of its issues, Windows XP was still a relatively reliable
operating system after Service Pack 2 was released. Once installed, SP2
offered the kind of functionality and security that we had hoped for and
although there were still security concerns, the operating system worked
much better than any of its predecessors and finally made sense for
businesses and individuals alike.

And just when XP was at its height, Microsoft decided to drop Windows
Vista on us, claiming "The wow was now." Sadly, the company failed to
realize that the only "wow" coming out of most people's mouths was
followed by something like, "what a crappy operating system."

In essence, Vista is nothing more than a pretty OS that loses any sense of
reliability and reignites that uneasy feeling I got when using XP SP1. Of
course, Microsoft doesn't agree.

According to the company, Vista was designed with security, good looks and
functionality in mind. Instead of being an XP clone, Vista has the fine
looks of Mac OS X and the usefulness we had come to expect from its
predecessor. Sadly, the marketing team must have missed the memo because I
haven't experienced anything of the sort.

Let's face it - Windows Vista is junk in almost every sense of the word.
Sure, it's better looking than XP and I like the Windows Aero interface,
but what really matters is how well the operating system performs at the
tasks we ask of it. And so far, it has failed miserably.


How many times have you used Vista only to find out that it's basically
the same bloated operating system with awkward warnings and crazy dialog
boxes? Vista is easily the most annoying operating system I have ever
used.


Just last week, I tried to install a Microsoft software package. After
going through all the rigmarole of validating my copy and making sure
Microsoft knows what I'm doing is legit, the operating system's new User
Access Control, which was ostensibly installed to safe guard me, asked me
five times if I wanted to install the program and if I had initiated the
process.


Once I got through that annoyance, I sat there and waited for the program
to install and watched as my brand-new operating system on a high-end PC
slowed to a crawl trying to perform a simple task. Of course, that issue
isn't just found during installation; the restart times are ridiculous and
the chances of getting something done in a reasonable amount of time are
all but lost. Simply put, Vista is brutally slow.

And yet, none of these issues are experienced in XP. Aside from being
asked once if I want to install something, XP boots up in a jiffy and
works just as I had hoped it would.

But in true Microsoft fashion, the company wants to stop licensing Windows
XP to OEMs by June 30. According to the company, it's time we move on from
XP and join the Vista world. It makes sense from a business standpoint -
Microsoft spent millions developing Vista and it wants to cash in on its
investment. But what about those of us who don't want to move to the
junker? What if we want to stick it out with the tried and true XP?

Even worse, after releasing XP Service Pack 3, I really don't see a reason
to switch. SP3 included all of the added security benefits of owning Vista
and did so without slowing the OS down or making it annoying to use. In
other words, the better OS just got better.

Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After
trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the
organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to
manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and
businesses that were loath to switch.

In response, the company has already started the propaganda machine for
Windows 7 - Vista's follow-up - and told the world just how "special" it
will be. But to me, it looks like a desperate move.

Instead of telling us how it will fix Vista and make it a worthwhile
product, it's as if Microsoft wants us to believe that the operating
system is a bridge to greatness and we should swallow our reservations and
walk across that bridge because the pleasure will surely be worth the
pain.

What a crock. Instead of wasting our time with hope for the future,
Microsoft should keep XP alive until Windows 7 and allow the users to
choose which software they want to use. At this point, Microsoft needs to
realize that consumers want reliability and hate the thought of being
forced into another crappy product. And although monetary concerns are
obviously a factor for the company, just how much money will Microsoft
lose if people realize how poor of an operating system Vista really is and
they switch to competing platforms without ever taking a look back?

Trust me, allowing XP to stay available is good for all parties involved.

Don Reisinger is a freelance technology columnist that has covered
everything from Google to Apple. With hundreds of columns to his credit
and millions of readers each month, you can find his unique opinionated
style on CNET, Computerworld, InformationWeek, ITworld and many others.
For more information, visit his homepage at donreisinger.com.

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/win...sta-dr-080218/

Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7
 

jamesgangnc wrote:


Get a life. What makes you think rec.boats is the place for your tirade
against microsoft? Loser.



"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
As the world's most prominent operating system, Windows has dominated the
tech industry for well over a decade and its competitors - Mac OS X and
Linux - have failed to gain the kind of penetration Microsoft has.

But ever since the days of Windows 98, we have been forced to deal with a
s



snerk

Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7
 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:51:08 -0500, hkrause wrote:

jamesgangnc wrote:


Get a life. What makes you think rec.boats is the place for your tirade
against microsoft? Loser.



"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
As the world's most prominent operating system, Windows has dominated the
tech industry for well over a decade and its competitors - Mac OS X and
Linux - have failed to gain the kind of penetration Microsoft has.

But ever since the days of Windows 98, we have been forced to deal with a
s



snerk

swallow or spit...?
--
John H