[Steve]

Customer demand has forced Microsoft to extend the shelf life of Windows XP by five months.

Microsoft was scheduled to stop selling the six-year-old operating system on 30 January 2008 to leave the field clear for Vista. Now the date on which many sellers of XP will no longer be able to offer it has been lengthened to 30 June 2008.

Microsoft said the change was to help those customers that needed more time to make the switch to Vista.

Sales profile

In a statement Mike Nash, Microsoft's Windows product manager, said: "...maybe we were a little ambitious to think that we would need to make Windows XP available for only a year after the release of Windows Vista."
He added that most of the other operating systems that Microsoft has produced were available for about two years after a new version shipped.

The newest Microsoft operating system, Windows Vista, had a staged release between November 2006 and late January 2007. In some quarters Vista had a lukewarm response and in April 2007 PC maker Dell was forced by customers to re-start sales of computers with XP installed. In January of that year the computer firm switched to Vista on almost all of the machines aimed at home users.

Software giant Microsoft does run a scheme that lets people rollback installation of Vista business and ultimate edition to Windows XP by ringing a customer support centre and getting an activation code.

Microsoft denied that the policy change was due to slow demand for Vista. Mr Nash said that up to the summer of 2007 Microsoft had sold more than 60 million licences for Vista. This put it on track to be the fastest selling operating system in Microsoft's history.

The XP date change applies to retailers and other manufacturers who sell Microsoft products. Independent firms that use Windows XP when installing and maintaining computers and networks for businesses can continue to offer it as an option until 30 January 2009.

Microsoft is also extending the availability of the cut-down version of XP, called Starter Edition, until 30 June 2010. It said this was because it was seeing increased demand for the software to run on low-powered devices made specifically for the developing world.

Source BBC

[Sparhawk]

Microsoft denied that the policy change was due to slow demand for Vista. Mr Nash said that up to the summer of 2007 Microsoft had sold more than 60 million licences for Vista. This put it on track to be the fastest selling operating system in Microsoft's history.
The only reason that they managed all those licences was because they gave the consumer NO CHOICE when they bought a new PC or laptop, and at the end of the day they will still be on a winner as any new programs brought out for Windows will only now work on the Vista
Regards
Sparhawk

[silkstone]

It is a real dilemma for anyone needing to get a new PC at the moment.

Do you go for Vista which may or may not run your existing software, and which (allegedly) is still buggy?

Do you get XP which is superseded and may not run new software?

Do you get a Mac (at a price!) knowing that OS-X Tiger will replaced by Leopard within a few weeks?

Do you get Linux and accept that it will run virtually none of your software but will do so very cheaply?

Do you search eBay for 'abacus' and learn how to write with a pen again?

Decisions, decisions....

[ChrisRabior]

If you remember, a well patched win95 was better than the first release of win98. Same as win98 to win98se, then to win2k, and winME, and winXP, and all of the service packs in between.

Anyone who thought Vista would be a good idea right off the shelf was incredibly silly and sorely mistaken. Despite our expectations of a fully functional software, the product you get right out of the box is often junk when it's bought from MS. Look at XP. XP was buggy until SP2, and even then still had some quirks.

I recently took the plunge on a laptop preloaded w/ Vista (with the comfort that I can install the copy of XP I bought in college if it doesn't work out). I'm happy with it. It works fine for me, but that was only after it installed like 125 updates (literally.. it took a TON of restarting and such to get the thing up to date).

Now, as for my older laptop.. it's likely getting ubuntu installed so I can run all of my freebies and have eternally free updates =)

[Charlotte]

It makes good business sense for MS to phase out XP, I don't see anything 'wrong' with that. Vista has superceded XP. Simple as that. It's extra expense for MS to support older versions of an OS which they have re-written. That's business and, like it or not, MS is a business, after all.

I don't see how PC vendors' installing Vista on new pc's can be blamed totally on MS either - the vendors pre-install, or offer choices (or not) themselves. Of course MS have partnered up with major pc providers, but again, they all made business decisions, it wasn't MS forcing Vista on anyone, they are simply promoting it more than they are promoting XP for obvious reasons (see above).

I've been using Vista for a few weeks now, and LOVE IT! Yes I've had one or two prob's, but they have not been due to any bugs or glitches in Vista itself. You just need to get to know Vista, same as with any other software.

So then, which one of the many ppl who are slamming Vista (and/or MS) are going to come up with an OS to make everyone happy, so that no-one can say they are 'forced' to buy Vista (or any other MS software)

[danpen]

I agree with Charlotte, for my needs Vista's great. I got a laptop preloaded with Vista a few days after it came out and it's run everything I use from then. I was considering a desktop replacement at the time and certainly had no intention of using anything other than Vista when I did that.

I don't think there's enough value in it to upgrade just to get vista but unless you have some pretty specific requirements that you know vista can't support (graphics intensive gaming is still an issue I believe) I'd certainly want it on any new machine.

Only issues I've had are in understanding the new security model for networking, but once that was sorted I've had no problems. I can't say it's more (or less) stable than XP 'cause I had a very stable XP build although I know I had to do a lot more tweaking and updating drivers etc to get a stable XP than I've done with Vista.

cheers

Dan

[fionaB]

seems that folks are very much divided on vista, i am not in the position to be worried about it at the mo, and if and when my machine packs in i will likely do the same as i have done with XP ( if it does it) and that is set it up for hte old basic windows way of running....... But a friend of mine has recently got a new laptop. installed everything then discovered that her newish epson printer wont print....... epson says they have no driver for Vista cos it should be inbuilt., after following epsons lengthy email with instructions on how to strip out everything that has anything to do with the printer, it wont work at all...and what do epson say.......... u may be interested in spending £300 on their latest photo printer?.

I have heard too many stories about peripherals not working that it frankly scares the s*%t out of me, if i got vista i wouldnt be able to replace everything else to get a working computer !

just my tuppence ha'pennies worth

Fi

[Charlotte]

Thanks for the support there Dan, I was expecting an immediate onslought from the Vista/MS haters

Yep, I use my laptop much more than I use my desktop PC, and Vista runs like a dream on it.

Originally Posted by danpen

I don't think there's enough value in it to upgrade just to get vista but unless you have some pretty specific requirements that you know vista can't support (graphics intensive gaming is still an issue I believe) I'd certainly want it on any new machine.

I agree totally. Except I believe the graphics issue lays with graphics cards, not Vista, in that no graphics card can yet fully utilise all the features of Direct X v.10 (unless they have come out with new ones in the last few weeks).

Originally Posted by danpen

Only issues I've had are in understanding the new security model for networking ...

This is exactly the same area I had problems. As you say, it was down to my lack of understanding, but I did figure it out eventually.

[Charlotte]

Fiona, I got my Epson R300 working ok. I had to download a patch from Epson, which is what anyone will have to do to get older peripherals to work on Vista, i.e. d/l a driver/patch from the hardware provider's website.

[fionaB]

hmmm well according to the email epson sent her there is no patch available

"The Vista driver for the R320 is provided by Microsoft as an Inbox driver. It is very similar to the Epson driver that you will have been familiar with if you used the R320 on an earlier version of Windows. With Windows XP, for example, only one standard ICC profile was delivered with the printer driver. The range of printers such as the R320, do not have ICC profiles produced for them; there are advanced settings within the printer driver that can be made. However only semi-professional and professional printers have ICC profiles produced by Epson, these are delivered with the driver and can be downloaded from the Epson website.



I regret to hear that you are experiencing poor printing results using the R320 in Windows Vista. It may be that there is another cause for this issue, as you should be able to achieve good prints without the need for ICC profiles.. For example, if you installed the printer driver from either the original CD-Rom or from the Epson website, this may be related to the problem.........


...............EPSON have not released a Vista driver for your printer model as the driver is provided as an “in built” driver in Windows Vista. "

that was part of a huge detailed email which only ended up in the printer not working at all,

Fi

[silkstone]

I found this - don't know if it's any use....

Epson Stylus Photo R320, Drivers & Downloads - Technical Support - Epson America, Inc.

[Charlotte]

Fiona, after reading your reply I went in search (online) for what I had downloaded, + suspect it's the same d/l silkstone has just posted a link for. It's Epson EasyPrint that I downloaded, which is not actually a Vista driver, although it will work in Vista. It is a utility which enables some prog's (particularly Adobe Photoshop) to access the printer driver more directly than in the normal course of events (i.e. via Properties).

On a re-think, when I say "I got the R300 to work ok" it didn't work "ok", but I put this down to the printer/cheap inks rather than Vista, as the quality of prints is just as crap on my XP machine

[j sotelo]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

So then, which one of the many ppl who are slamming Vista (and/or MS) are going to come up with an OS to make everyone happy, so that no-one can say they are 'forced' to buy Vista (or any other MS software)

Other OS have been created there where a few allready mentioned in this thread, BUT the problem is that Bill Gates monopilized the computer industry.
Its like you said "It makes good business sense for MS to phase out XP" and ofcourse thats all it is, business.
I use XP wich is from microsoft but the fact the truth is told doesnt make anybody "slammers" theres persons like you that use vista and maybe the programs you use work perfectly due to the fact theres drivers and everything you need for them, but theres people that use other programs that dont work "YET" and I bet they wont be as happy as you.
I also hav