digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Windows XP: Going, going ... gone?

computerworld.com — Will there be any way to get a copy of Windows XP after June 30? If you want to continue using XP, what problems will you face? If you buy a PC with Vista installed and decide you want XP instead, what are your options?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Pelenclerk, on 03/25/2008, -23/+328Who thought we'd see the day where XP was the choice for stability and reliability?
    • Topher06, on 03/25/2008, -22/+159I remember when XP was released and everyone complained that they would have to tear their copy of Windows 2000 out of their cold dead hands before they installed XP. Now is the same thing with Vista. In 3 years it will be the same thing with Windows 7.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/25/2008, -27/+182That's because Microsoft releases unfinished software, not because people are nostalgic.
        • Murdats, on 03/25/2008, -53/+12no its because people refuse to actually use it until they are forced to and see its not so bad, and assume its gotten better, also the third party support has improved by that point aswell (though I will admit a couple of obvious and annoying bugs were fixed several months ago, or if you dont update, in sp1)
          • chewbie, on 03/25/2008, -16/+26no, Murdats! it's because my new laptop with 2gb RAM had 200mbs free while running Vista and it has more than 1.6gb free running XP.
            Vista is either too far ahead for its time or just not much of an "upgrade" for some
          • norman619, on 03/25/2008, -9/+30@Chew:

            It's called pre-caching. Vista loads apps into ram for you anticipating you running them. It doesn't hurt anything. I have 4 gigs ram and Vista always uses 2 gigs for this. Like you I thought something was wrong. Then I was reminded of pre-caching. Vista will dump what it has in RAM if you need the ram for something else. And yes Vista came out a wee bit early. The basic system at the time of release was not really "Vista ready." Most of the time when I help someone with crappy Vista performance it turns out the system is underpowered. Either the CPU isn't powerful enough or they don't have enough ram. Once I help them upgrade ram, CPU or both the system runs fine. SP1 is another matter.
          • fjc8, on 03/25/2008, -3/+28Free memory: the ultimate measure of system performance and stability. Or not.

            Vista and OS X use unused memory for caching programs before they're loaded.
          • BigManOnCampus, on 03/25/2008, -3/+11@Norman...
            Yeah, that's fine, the problem is those people you have to help with Vista probably recently purchased those computers brand new, and with a sticker that said "Vista Ready" on the side.
          • insertAliasHere, on 03/25/2008, -3/+6@chewbie
            If you really had only 200 megs free you probably had plenty of crapware from the manufacturer running as well as the Superfetch service that the two above me alluded too. If you believe in the illusion that prefetching is bad and free unused ram is good, you could always do a fresh install (no bloatware from the maker) and disable the Superfetch service. But if you really gave it a chance for a few weeks, you would find that your most-used apps will actually load faster. They have for me.

            As a side note, Ubuntu Hardy Heron will also be released with the FOSS version of superfetch (called prefetch), I wonder if people will complain about that, or praise and defend it while badmouthing vista.
          • grumpyrain, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4@BigManOnCampus
            The Vista ready ones were fine. It was the Vista Capable ones that were not.
          • qwertydvorak, on 03/25/2008, -4/+3@insertAliasHere: some people just want to do one thing at one time, and another at another. i am either using word/excel and the browser, or i am playing a game. the game only has to load once. once it is running i want the system fully devoted to the game. as far as word and browsing, they open with great speed in xp without superfetch. a lighter os wouldn't need tricks to run apps faster.
          • insertAliasHere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3I never said that superfetch helps you run more programs at once. It helps you load programs faster. So your game would take less time to load each time you used it. For that matter, even if you didn't use it often, when it loads, superfetch deallocates the memory it was using. So your game still gets its resources.

            As for word loading fast in XP, thats a bad comparison. Thats pretty light to begin with. On my machine, Visual Studio took several seconds to open. Now on vista (same machine) it takes about 2 seconds. And the ram spike is less than you would expect.

            I don't care if you use vista yourself. I'm not trying to tell you that you should. I just hate it when people come around and say "OMG my new 4Gb ram computer is using 2Gb at idle! Vista is a bloated piece of crap that I uninstalled in one day!" People just don't understand.
        • KloroFormd, on 03/25/2008, -6/+61I agree 100%. XP was quite ***** when it was first released, it improved with SP1, and it seemed to come out of beta with SP2.

          I'll get Vista when SP2 is released.
        • aldableep3, on 03/25/2008, -6/+31lol @ kloroformd
          "came out of beta with SP2"
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -1/+5I'll say it again: Microsoft should regex their product line thusly: ~s/SP/RC/

            That said, I love Windows XP RC2. I'll likely love Vista when it reaches a similar milestone.

            Meanwhile...
        • grumpyrain, on 03/25/2008, -4/+6Interesting.
          I have never had a kernel panic with Vista. I have never had a system lockup on Vista. Explorer has crashed once, but it nicely restarted itself. I have even got a game of Win98 vintage that works again on Vista after never getting it to work on XP. My Vista box boots up faster than any of my XP machines ever did, only by 3 or 4 seconds but still. And it resumes from sleep every time, unlike my XP laptop that about 20% of the time will send a svchost.exe to 100% CPU until I reboot. Vista is the first Windows install I ever did which did not require a single driver disk to get any of my peripherals working.

          Could I criticise anything? Sure. To keep the interface nice and clean they have sacrificed a couple of mouse clicks to locate a few things, but if my laptop would run it (it is 4 years old), I would use it at work without hesitation.
          • mattski, on 03/25/2008, -6/+8Interesting.
            I have never had a kernel panic with Linux. I have never had a system lockup on Linux. KDE has crashed once, but it nicely restarted itself. I have even got a game of Win98 vintage that works again on Linux after never getting it to work on XP. My Linux box boots up faster than any of my XP machines ever did, only by 3 or 4 seconds but still. And it resumes from sleep every time, unlike my XP laptop that about 20% of the time will send a svchost.exe to 100% CPU until I reboot. Linux is the first OS install I ever did which did not require a single driver disk to get any of my peripherals working.

            Could I criticise anything? not really, I actually like the level of customisability and control my Linux install offers.

            sorry - couldn't resist :P
          • Tenoq, on 03/25/2008, -2/+3You're not trying hard enough. Crashing Vista is as easy as installing an old driver-based program written for XP. Like ATiTool, for example. :P
          • Pyroteq, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3mattsxki - You forgot the part where you had to search on the internet and spend half an hour trying to work out how to get MP3 support...
          • BCModder1, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1@mattski

            I have had multiple occurrences with kernel panics in vista just over installing that one little wrong program that was "out of date" so don't go MS fan boy on us cause it does happen, Ive had the same with XP as well, Linux Ive just plain broken while messing with stuff I knew I probably shouldn't.

            @ Pyroteq

            buried for idiocy and noobism, I haven't had to search for how to's on mp3 support with Linux since Ubuntu breezy, so long as you have the restricted sources uncommented it's as easy as installing amarok and opening an mp3 in it, amarok automatically asks you if you would like to install mp3 support.

            *note: I'm not a fanboy for any OS I hate all equally and any preference is just a choice of a lesser of evil/headache inducing options*
          • Magnus150, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2@matt
            My hibernate and sleep support on my lappy running linux sucks something awful. 20% of the time the fan doesn't turn back on, or the computer doesn't wake up altogether. I've had more kernel panics with linux than I ever had in windows. As a matter of fact, I've never had a BSOD on Vista ever, one that I can remember on XP, and my old ATI card back in the day caused linux to crash until I got a new one. It was horrid and ever computer I put linux on involves jury-rigging something.
            Call me a corporate whore, but I like windows. Never had any issues with it (cept getting really old games to work, ala Arena or Daggerfall)
          • grumpyrain, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2@all
            Some context here - the digg comment system attached my reply to the wrong parent. I was contrasting my experience with theirs, but it just looks odd as a reply to the parent. It is down about 100 posts now ;(

            @mattski, I agree. But if you have never seen a kernel panic, you mustn't have had to installed as many ***** WLAN card drivers as me. (Note, this is not a flaw in Linux, but a comment on lazy manufacturers for not releasing quality drivers for Linux). In fact I had an Ubuntu install that would kernel panic during boot if my WLAN card was even plugged into the board.

            I am just not in the business of blaming an OS for flaws in third party drivers.
          • Fordi, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1@BCModder:
            Ummm.... 'sudo synaptic' - for all your software needs.
            Actually, I hear that most distros have a link on the desktop for that these days. Been a while since I've used Linux.
          • FSHero, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0@grumpyrain:
            I got kernel panic errors when putting a wireless card into a PCI slot once upon a time! So, it sounds like it is a wireless-card specific problem?
            Bizarrely, when I put the card in a different PCI slot, Xubuntu booted okay.
        • yingjai, on 03/25/2008, -4/+6name an operating system that is released fully developed, bug free, and with no further updates required ever. any linux distros? mac perhaps? none? then there isn't really a reason to pick on microsoft for that.
        • BCModder1, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1@yingjai

          buried for idiocy as well seeing as only fan boys try to claim that their OS are bug free when it's a well known fact that non are, just some are to a lesser extent and Linux/UNIX are to a lesser extent then windows just simply cause windows has the larger user base....well that and microsoft seems to always end up setting unrealistic release dates that they know they can't meet instead of being smart and not setting one until they know to some degree when they will actually be finished. I didn't include mac in the bugs thing cause I haven't used a mac since the mac 2 so I really can't say one way or another anything about any bugs it may or may not have.
          • Fordi, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes. Because a larger user base implies buggier code.

            A larger user base implies that more of the bugs come to light - but then, why is it that the open Unices are continuously updating, while Microsoft can only seem to pull them off weekly?
      • boot20, on 03/25/2008, -16/+85If Vista could be deployed in the Enterprise, it would be. However, there are WAY too many issues with Vista and real work, so XP is going to be the corporate desktop of choice for as long as possible. Call me when UAC, GPOs, drivers, legacy apps, SATA, SCSI, etc ad nausium work properly in Vista.

        Not to mention that Vista is a buggy mess. When Paul Thurott says Vista is a buggy mess, it's a buggy mess.
        • gypsi, on 03/25/2008, -7/+83you're being dugg down by people whose idea of enterprise is their bridge replica in mom's basement
          • norman619, on 03/25/2008, -8/+15ROTFL!!!!!

            DUGG!
          • 11oops, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2The fact that norman's idiotic YouTube quality comment has positive diggs discredits this entire thread.
        • boot20, on 03/25/2008, -5/+16@gypsi: Don't I know it. I tell you, I comment in these Vista threads with the same thing and I always get dugg down. I can't wait 'til these noobs hit the enterprise. ;-)
          • norman619, on 03/25/2008, -9/+3Reply buttons are neat!
          • popfrogs, on 03/25/2008, -2/+16I'm right there with you. When you have hundreds of workstations under your roof, and you support CAD and other specialty software packages (whose programmers are loathe to change), Vista isn't even on the radar. It's a consumer OS, and a poor one at that.
          • estvir, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Why isn't it on the radar? And with all the improvements in Group Policy, new installer, etc, how is it strictly a consumer OS?
        • estvir, on 03/25/2008, -8/+3What are the problems with deploying Vista in an enterprise setting, and what are all these bugs you and Paul Thurrot (Suddenly you people think he's credible, fickle whores) speak of?
      • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/25/2008, -11/+57Little do you know, Vista has already gone the path of ME. Prepare to see a new OS in 2009-2010.
        • GOVATENT, on 03/25/2008, -12/+3that is great. I knew it was like ME, but i did not see that it is going the same was ME did.
        • Rileyper, on 03/25/2008, -12/+5ME failed due to back door vulnerabilities not from bad reputation
          • mOdQuArK, on 03/25/2008, -2/+35ME failed because it was a horrid piece of crap. Backdoor vulnerabilities were the least of its problems - ME wouldn't stay up long enough on many systems for there to be time for the backdoor vulnerabilities to be exploited.
          • norman619, on 03/25/2008, -0/+9ME was not very good.
          • bromac, on 03/25/2008, -1/+22ME failed because it was the bastard child of Dos-based Win 9x and NT. But it used the worst parts of both: The instability of 9x and the lack of control that came with XP. You couldn't even touch your system files without ME's protection system kicking in, most likely resulting in a FUBAR'ed system.

            Worst. OS. Ever.
          • gudnbluts, on 03/25/2008, -3/+2"ME failed because it was the bastard child of Dos-based Win 9x and NT."

            It didn't come from NT. XP was the first OS to combine the NT line with the 3.1/95/98 line.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4@gudnbluts:
            bromac is actually right; ME was an attempt to graft an NT kernel atop a DOS environment. Microsoft could have spent years developing it - and it would still have been unstable and nigh-useless.
        • MioTheGreat, on 03/25/2008, -2/+11Gone the way of ME? More like gone the way of Windows 95. 3ish years after its release we'll see a new OS built on Vista, exactly as it should be.
        • estvir, on 03/25/2008, -0/+5So? The 'short' amount of time between Vista and when 7 may be replaced has nothing to do with any stupid comparisons to Vista being like ME, it's because Microsoft is changing it's way of releasing Windows (No more 'big bang' releases and more incremental ones), has a better base to work off, etc.
      • bromac, on 03/25/2008, -2/+33Actually, it was Win98SE.

        Windows 2k was only really in use in corporate environments. Few consumers used it.
        • doshindude, on 03/25/2008, -14/+5O RLY? Everyone I knew had Win2k back in the day.
          • bromac, on 03/25/2008, -1/+14I did tech support/help desk for an ISP at the time of the switch, supporting about 900 users.

            Few consumers used 2k. It' was Win98SE -> WinXP for the vast majority. I bet you that there's still far more 98SE machines out there than 2k, unless you step into the corporate environment, where 2k is still very much alive.

            I, unlike you, don't take my polls on OS market share from people I know personally. They're mostly geeks. I poll my users, and they certainly didn't use much 2k. I ran into more Mac installs than 2k, although granted, 2k users tended to be more savvy and didn't call as much, but I'm talking about CONSUMERS, not the geeks who swiped a copy of 2k from work.
          • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4@bromac

            You put it very well. I always hung around the "geek" crowd myself, and while we ourselves used 2000, our family members and other "casual users" were all using 98SE (which we normally installed and maintained).

            I loved both of the OS's. I spent lots of fun times on 98SE myself, but once I started getting really geeky and learned what 2000 could do, I never looked back. I still have 2000 on one of my file servers.

            So yeah, I think you'd be right in saying more people graduated from 98SE > XP than the 2000 users. But we geeks, we didn't wanna give 2k up! It was great! I was finally sold on XP when SP2 came out and fixed a lot of issues. I fully expect myself to follow in the same path here. I don't hate Vista, I just don't feel the need yet. I'm sure SP2 will offer enough to entice me (and the price will have fallen more by then).

            Either that or I'll have a new machine that comes with it. By then, everything will be written for it, so I'll be fine.
          • PRlME, on 03/25/2008, -3/+1i think you guys are talking about Windows ME
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4@bromac:
            Agreed: the people that needed support weren't the ones using W2k. W2k users barely needed any help at all, as it was remarkably more stable than even W98SE was.
          • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2@PRIME

            Some of us here DO know what we're talking about. No, we weren't talking about ME. Not many people moved to ME, and the only ones that did were people that didn't hear the horror stories about it (first time users). While it was a bad move, it sure did make the switch over to XP an easy one to make.

            From the sounds of it, you were one of the people who got stuck with ME. I sure wasn't one, and from reading the statements of the people in the thread you're commenting in, neither are these people.

            Take your bias elsewhere.
          • PRlME, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1na i went from se to sp1 I would never touch ME...but thanks for clearing it up -=)
          • Magnus150, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Prime, I wouldn't touch you either
      • ufia, on 03/25/2008, -9/+11I still miss some of Windows 2000 usability. Little things like remembering your folder view settings & position makes all the difference, or remembering what file extension you selected in the drop down list since the last time you opened a file, etc. It's like they are stripping useful options in every newer versions to remind us how ***** Windows is. And one of the worst is Windows XP's concurrent connections limit in SP2, forcing you to reboot every 15 minutes when watching many YouTube videos in a row or downloading large files because the TCP/IP stack is dying on you.
        • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -2/+9There is a patch that can fix that. Do some Googling. You can set however many stacks you want, and it seems to keep things running quite nicely. Been running it for a while now. It's not an official patch, and considered by many as a "hack", but hey, that's the fun of being geeky.
          • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4Being dugg down for stating that something can be fixed?

            The zealots are out in force tonight, I see.
          • Magnus150, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1MY LIFE FOR APPLE, er AIUR
        • Exploit, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1WTF??
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/25/2008, -1/+21I embraced XP when it came out. A new operating system was needed at the time. What can be done on vista can also be done on XP with more stability. I think new operating systems should come out at a time when change is needed. People hated Windows ME and were glad to finally get a stable OS. Now that the majority of computers still use XP, we are having a hard time finding reasons to switch.
      • Genma, on 03/25/2008, -4/+1actually it's not the same, not similar at all in any way.
      • sk11, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Many businesses still use win2000...
    • Kerath, on 03/25/2008, -3/+10I saw that day when I first installed it in 2001 or 2002.
    • thedogfatherx, on 03/25/2008, -7/+10Yea it's pretty much a circle of complainers.
    • Wakuko, on 03/25/2008, -19/+8Drop M$ like a hot potato and your life will be better, I promise.
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/25/2008, -7/+2It isn't. It's the choice for *compatibility*. Vista, despite all it's flaws, is far more stable, reliable, and secure... assuming you can run it and your applications on top of it.
    • bingobongony, on 03/25/2008, -8/+29A LOT of people. If your XP with SP2 isn't stable then you are doing something wrong.

      You can't blame Microsoft for that fact that its users are too ***** stupid to use a computer properly.
      • 1randomguyO8, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Yeah well it takes alot of getting use and alot of hours behind a pc before you learn how to really product yourself and even you'll end having to hve to format and redo everything, install OS, install firewall-anti virus, drivers etc etc.
    • shownoregrets, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2i did.
    • xptoast, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3I bought my copy lol. Yay. Maybe I should get all the patches before they stop letting us get them?
    • ATLien74, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1No such day has ever existed.
      • bingobongony, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4For intelligent people, it existed when SP2 was release. Again..if you have problems with XP SP2, then it is YOUR stupidity. Not Microsoft's. Don't blame the company for the fact that you have a bad education.
    • identifiedlogo, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1it is
    • saturn5, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah, you're a genius. Microsoft shouldn't have replaced 95/98/ME with XP. They were so much more stable and reliable!
  • jmhyer51, on 03/25/2008, -16/+342Bittorent
    • Jalh, on 03/25/2008, -30/+5p2p networks
    • chrisaug18, on 03/25/2008, -2/+37Exactly, I just feel bad for businesses who have to keep everything legit.
      • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+7Why? Most business keep their OEM keys around. Using a 'backup' pulled from the internet is just as legit as buying a disc, if you own the original license.

        I mean, hell. That's what I do. Bought XP Pro back when SP2 came out, and I've had to replace that damned disc a few times.

        You'd be surprised how messed up a disc can get just sitting around. I eventually just moved it to a USB stick and prekeyed it.
        • zongamin, on 03/25/2008, -4/+2I'm surprised how many times you need to reinstall your OS and you think its acceptable.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Who said 're'-install? I build my own systems, and, in the goodness of time, eventually need to install an operating environment. Hence the need for a stable install medium.
        • thanakar, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Why do you find reinstalling an OS objectionable?
          • 11oops, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Because he has clearly never worked in a business environment.
        • chrisaug18, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Oh, I didn't know that...I'll keep that in mind for the future, although I would probably double check seeing as your some random person on the internet. no offence though.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/25/2008, -3/+21True. I'll bet you could still get a good torrent of Windows 95 or MSDOS out there. Now that Microsoft is busy with Vista, they will not have time to make sure people aren't stealing XP.
      • doshindude, on 03/25/2008, -3/+10Win95 torrent? I've been looking for one for a long time, I haven't found one yet.
      • theragu40, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3To be fair, MS didn't really give a damn about illegitimate copies of XP at any time. Sure, they've got WGA, which is kind of a pain, but it's easy enough to circumvent if you try a little, and even if you don't, you can still run XP, it just keeps telling you that it's not valid.
    • s1mph0ny, on 03/25/2008, -3/+11Microsoft will have a hard time demonstrating any copyright infringement cases where a user infringes on software which microsoft is not selling. At some point Microsoft will be forced into extending the availability of xp licenses, but they won't do it until necessary. The more MS makes Vista seem necessary, the more people will consider using it.
      • so1omon, on 03/25/2008, -1/+6Really? Please tell me that you don't actually believe this. It doesn't matter if they're selling it or not... they own the copyright on it, and the copyright is still valid. If Microsoft, for some reason, extends XP availability again, it will have nothing to do with trying to make sure they have the right to go after someone for pirating it. They have that right regardless. Please stop spreading garbage information.
        • OrangeSoda31, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4I don't think there has been a major court case regarding abandon-ware and copyright infringement. Yes, the law clearly states that they still own it, but the law isn't always how the courts rule.
        • s1mph0ny, on 03/25/2008, -1/+5I do believe it. Microsoft cannot demonstrate how they lose money by an entity redistributing a product that they have no plans of selling. Without demonstrating a loss of income, a case will be considered frivolous.
        • tba2287, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Copyright for corporations lasts 95 years from creation. While it's unfortunate that older versions of Windows will become abandonware, you can still be sued by Microsoft if you illegally download or upload any version of Windows, Office, or even DOS. Now, the actual odds of MS suing you are small for old software that they have no intention of making money off of again, but legally they can do it.
      • Cl1mh4224rd, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4> "Microsoft will have a hard time demonstrating any copyright infringement cases where a user infringes on software which microsoft is not selling."

        Copyrights have nothing to do with *selling* and everything to do with *distributing*.

        Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
        • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -4/+3Read up on 'Abandonware'.

          If Microsoft stops distributing a product, it's legal to redistribute it as long as Microsoft doesn't file a complaint.
          • so1omon, on 03/25/2008, -2/+3Wow.... I continue to be amazed at how misinformed the Digg community seems to be. You couldn't be more wrong. Just because a company doesn't file a complaint doesn't mean that it's legal to distribute a product that they own the copyright to. It just means that they haven't complained. You're suggesting that the only thing that determines the legality of software piracy is that the copyright owners complain. How could you honestly believe that? If the cops aren't around, it doesn't make it legal to speed.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2"You're suggesting that the only thing that determines the legality of software piracy is that the copyright owners complain."
            Since copyright is a civil matter, that's exactly right. Copyright gives the holder grounds for suit in the event that others are distributing their works without permission. 'Legality' doesn't even come into it until the copyright holder becomes aware and does something about it.

            Meanwhile, the term 'illegal' refers to criminal acts. Because this is a civil act, it can be termed 'potentially actionable'.

            So basically my above post was semantically wrong, so a correction is in order: If Microsoft stops distributing a product, a third-party distributor of that product has less chance of having to deal with a lawsuit than if he were distributing something new.

            Laastly, and this is something I want you all to understand: Under US law, so called "intellectual property" is not the same as "property", and isn't covered by property rights.
        • tpink, on 03/25/2008, -3/+4You probably think ROMs are legal if you own the cartridge, too.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4They are a legal form of backup, fascist.
    • doshindude, on 03/25/2008, -5/+9www.thepiratebay.org
    • Wakuko, on 03/25/2008, -11/+26http://www.ubuntu.com

      and while you´re at it...

      http://getfirefox.com

      There you go, happy as a clam
    • univerio, on 03/25/2008, -6/+28***** THE RIAA!

      Uh, wait... I saw the word bittorrent and... Well, ***** them anyways!
    • robthom, on 03/25/2008, -4/+9Pirate Xp's will be good for another 10 years or so. In fact I'd rather use '98 than vista.
      I haven't checked up on wine lately, but as soon as a highly compatible emulator comes out that can run all the games and software written for windows on linux, there just wont be any reason to use windows anymore. Well I guess old people or housewives or the generally computer illiterate will still like windows better. The same way some people prefer AOL.
      • samssf, on 03/25/2008, -3/+10Dugg for comparing Windows to AOL.
      • xptoast, on 03/25/2008, -2/+398 sucks though. Degrades very quickly. 95 seemed a bit more stable. That or windows 2000 but def not windows me.
        • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I had a tight installation of 98SE, but after playing with dual-booting into 2000 for a while, I just wiped the 98SE install. I was sold. I adopted to XP at SP1, though I was very impressed by SP2.
      • makis, on 03/25/2008, -3/+2i want to see you using win 98!!!i can't wait!!!liar!!
    • BambinosKrib, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1http://thepiratebay.org/user/Jackdilla1/0/9
  • SkinnerIJA, on 03/25/2008, -32/+39Well...better make it quick before Vista is my default OS. XP is just so much better...just didn't need so much eye candy.
    • Ramble, on 03/25/2008, -10/+35Why not go with 2000 then? Much less eye candy than XP.
      • subxero37, on 03/25/2008, -4/+14Windows 2000 is, IMO, the best version of Windows. Sadly, most programs these days refuse to install on Windows 2000 and require at least XP, although there's no serious differences in the underlying OS, especially with SP4 for Windows 2000. There are a few kernel API changes and additions, but the only program I've ever had that relied on the new features of XP is Virtual PC.
      • Gerz1219, on 03/25/2008, -10/+7Better gaming support in XP. Unlike Vista, where TF2 stutters for absolutely no reason and crashes to the desktop constantly. On the same system, booting into XP produces none of the crazy game crashes (I've had similar anomalies in Crysis and Rainbow Six Vegas). These problems should have been fixed within a month or two. It's been over a year.
        • Kazbaeden, on 03/25/2008, -4/+20You might want to look into that problem a little deeper; my two friends and I have Vista and play TF2 daily without a hitch. Perhaps video card drivers are the culprit?
          • grumpyrain, on 03/25/2008, -0/+7No, it couldn't possibly be the video card drivers. It must be Vista, the operating system.
            /sarcasm
          • 11oops, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Yes, and Kaz is clearly a liar because Vista sucks and anyone who uses it is an incompetent fool who lies about how good it is to overcome the fact that they know they wasted their money.
            also /sarcasm
      • DeathGod321, on 03/25/2008, -2/+16Or better yet, ***** the GUI, go back to dos. (Why does saying "***** the GUI" make me want to play command and conquer?)
        • rockefeller2, on 03/25/2008, -1/+19Got some weird mental image of a guy dry humping his monitor.
        • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4You played GDI too much, hehe.

          /NOD owns.
        • DemDude, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4"Why does saying "***** the GUI" make me want to play command and conquer?"
          All I can do is NOD in approval.
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/25/2008, -5/+11You can turn off all of the effects and XP is more stable and secure.
        • twigboy, on 03/25/2008, -3/+4why the hell are people digging that comment up?
          turning off eye candy does not make a system more secure!
          • MioTheGreat, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4It could actually go either way. Under Vista, toggling between the two makes some pretty big shifts in how data is handled, what APIs are available. There could potentially be a security thing in either the DWM or in the non-accelerated desktop. AFAIK there hasn't been anything like that in DWM, though.
    • HOTM, on 03/25/2008, -8/+16Or turn it off....
    • sekander94, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2Even if you do like eye candy, there are ways to make XP have lots of eye candy, but with a much lower tax on system resources.
    • DemDude, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4I say you're right! Who needs Eye Candy? Who needs a safe environment that doesn't allow installers to run on their own in the background? Who needs an OS that reduces stress on the CPU by rendering the Desktop using the graphics card? Who needs enhanced usability? Who needs easy Start Menu navigation using a search bar?
      After all, who likes things that are easy on the eyes? Eye candy is rubbish, that's why I drive a FIAT Multipla, and my wife looks like Rosie O'Donnell!
      /sarcasm
      • amythewasp, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Oh the charm of the Multipla!
      • MatthewDuke, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Easy there Bill Gates. Take a breather.
  • Bungo, on 03/25/2008, -19/+90If you buy a PC with Vista installed and decide you want XP instead, what are your options? Bittorrent.
    • AppleMacMan, on 03/25/2008, -54/+7It's called Mac OS X. The only option that makes sense. 
      • subterfuge, on 03/25/2008, -7/+25i'm using Ubuntu Linux right now
        • AppleMacMan, on 03/25/2008, -21/+2Oh wonderful, now Linux's market share has just gone from an incredible and whopping 0.67% to a smashing and frighting 0.68% all on an account of you. Proud of yourself?
          • theaceoffire, on 03/25/2008, -3/+12Why should he care? Ubuntu works, has great support, and is updated regularly.
        • Daniel591992, on 03/25/2008, -2/+17Hey, you're a Mac user. You can't boast about market share either...
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+15AppleMacMan... You make other Mac users sad, I guarantee it.
          • AlexBellisBrown, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3I started using Ubuntu a week ago, and im never going back, the only problem is you need to know "a llittle" about computers, and have pacience.
      • JiaoYang, on 03/25/2008, -17/+17XP is light years ahead of OSX
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+8It would make sense for you to kill yourself.
      • gudnbluts, on 03/25/2008, -2/+5I think you'll find it won't work on his new PC. Suggest something else.
        • FIip, on 03/25/2008, -3/+4Oh, I think it will, considering I'm running OS X Tiger on my custom-built PC right now. A hackintosh is the most inexpensive Mac you can buy (or build, in my case).
          http://www.osx86project.org/
        • theragu40, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2Why would you run OSX when you could run XP?
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2Why would you run XP or OS-X or Ubuntu when you triple-boot?
            My hackintosh partition scheme:
            | 80M(Grub) | 30G(OSX) | 30G(XP) | 30G(UGG) | 4G(Shared swap) | 144G(Docs, downloads, music, video, etc) |
          • zongamin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Pointless.
    • GOVATENT, on 03/25/2008, -4/+4would it still be called breaking copyright law?
      • Orderless, on 03/25/2008, -0/+23Yeah, but ***** them. You've already paid for the more expensive Vista when you bought the PC.
      • Ramble, on 03/25/2008, -2/+13No. You can download any MS OS as much as you'd like provided you have a valid key.
        • tomz17, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1well.. only if you can download it without uploading it back to other people... see the DISTRIBUTION of copyrighted material is what matters here.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+7Maybe, but who gives a ***** about that anymore?
    • theWrkncacnter, on 03/25/2008, -6/+6This is a windows thread, mmkay? Dug down and ignored.
      • AppleMacMan, on 03/25/2008, -17/+1Ok, I've dugged you down and now I'm ignoring you. :)
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -8/+1LOL WINBLOWZ SUCKS M$ CYBORG BILL
        All of those words can be seen as more valid responses than yours.
    • chewbie, on 03/25/2008, -8/+3You can legally "downgrade" to XP.
      Step 1 get an XP disk from somebody and use their serial # to install XP.
      Step 2 Start > Run > type in "oobe/msoobe /a" without quotes and press Enter
      Step 3 Call micro$haft and tell them you wanna activate your winXP copy and that you're downgrading from Vista
      Step 4 activate XP with the code they gave you
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -4/+4Oh, that's really legal, using someone else's copy. And Microsoft'll be just glad to give you the key, too.
      • theaceoffire, on 03/25/2008, -2/+6You are basically stealing it, so why not just go ahead and get XP Pro essential.
        Its smaller, installs without prompts, and doesn't need keys. Most patches are included.
        • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Dugg up for Essential.

          Though, I kind of miss eXPerience, and really prefer LastXP.
    • ksong12, on 03/25/2008, -7/+3eBay.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1sucks for this since you'd need it to have an activation patch which is illegal anyways so why not use bittorrent in the first place.
        • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3No, he's actually right. If you buy boxed copies on eBay, with codes and all that, it'd be legit. They can't stop you from using a legally bought copy. An added bonus would be to download all of the service packs now, and burn 'em to disk.

          Smart money says that if someone invests in a bunch of copies of XP now, and puts them on eBay in 2010, they could make an assload of money. Sell the boxed disc set, along with a burned copy of all of the service packs released (easy to download), and you could make a nice little sale.

          Just sayin'.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1What if the activation server is shutdown? That's what I meant.
          • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1At that point, I really don't think finding a crack for the "final" code will be a problem.

            It'll hit the wild, and MS will just not chase it down or update their patcher anymore. How much enforcement do you see on Win 95 or 2k anymore? Once you enter the code to install it, install your updates, you're done. I don't see XP being any different.
  • crazlunatic, on 03/25/2008, -16/+55The death of Windows XP will be a sad one
    • AppleMacMan, on 03/25/2008, -49/+9The hell it will!! It will be a day of great rejoicing. Thank God this spyware infested and spam pumping bot infected crapware will finally be buried. LIFE IS GOOD ON A MAC. 
      • darkzealot89, on 03/25/2008, -5/+18Would you kindly stop spamming digg comments with your Mac-elitist *****? Enjoy hardly any video games on that POS.
        • AppleMacMan, on 03/25/2008, -23/+4I'm sorry but I'm not 12 yrs old like you, so video game playing on a computer is hardly of interest to me. I wonder how wealthy a spammer is becoming because of your spam pumping bot infected PC? Now that's the real POS! LOL. 
          • gudnbluts, on 03/25/2008, -3/+5Ah, this is why you like Macs. You think most PC's have some kind of infestation. You could save yourself a bagload of money in future by doing some research.
          • Rikkochet, on 03/25/2008, -2/+11Actually I'm offering 12:1 odds that AppleMacMan is indeed 12, and 6:1 odds he's under 15.
            No, really, it shows in your typing. You don't play games because you can't - not because you're "mature". The only people who legitimately believe that gaming is for kids are technophobes or over 60.
          • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -2/+6You sure act 12. Go away, flog your Apple somewhere else. We get your point, you love your machine. You tell us about it in EVERY ***** THREAD that deals with computers if it has anything at all to do with either Windows or Mac. We get your point. Shut the ***** up already. Some of us like our OS's. Though, obviously not as rabidly as you do. Holy *****, take a pill or something.
          • UKsHaDoW, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Theres nothing to see here.
            I use mac and I think his a *****.
            Just a troll.
            He is right about games though, not everbody plays games, actually the majority of people are casual gamers, i.e flash games
          • jmg703, on 03/25/2008, -1/+5I wonder what you DO do on your mac besides troll and get off on the mirror widget on your dashboard. Poser. Your internet browsing machine could have been $1000 less if you had built your own instead of begged mommy for money so you could feel better about yourself by being a "mac user". Get over yourself. No one gives a ***** what OS you use. You're still the same idiot you were back when you were crying because you couldn't figure out how to change your screen saver on XP. Do you work on a Mac as a part of your career? I do. I also work on XP. Right now you just come off like some sad little man/child trying to get attention on a website. None of your points are valid or applicable to real life. Turn off the Mac for a few minutes a day and find something else to care about besides your stupid OS, it's goddamn pathetic.
          • darkzealot89, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2"I wonder how wealthy a spammer is becoming because of your spam pumping bot infected PC? Now that's the real POS! LOL"

            Infected PC? With my AVG, Spybot, and network firewall there is nothing coming out of my PC or network that shouldn't. All my computers connected to the network are monitored by a *nix server. Irregular traffic is logged and can point to spam or virus. However, this is never the case since AVG and spybot keep all my boxes clean.
        • zongamin, on 03/25/2008, -3/+1Grow up and stop playing games you retard.
      • GoldYoshi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Annoying me again? O' well, welcome to my block list, it takes true genius to even get there. I hardly ever paste url's, so here goes a try:
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1*****! I just keep on reading this guys comments. Every time, i just regret it so badly.
    • Ganja420, on 03/25/2008, -13/+1XP blows
    • sapient2003, on 03/25/2008, -4/+11I am not much of a fan of Windows XP myself (I prefer various distributions of Linux), but I can totally feel for you Windows XP users. I tried Windows Vista on two of my friends' computers and it just annoyed me. The start menu was ruined, it's added "security" thinks you are retarded and asks you to confirm everything, it's resource requirements are extensive, etc. Hopefully Microsoft will think of you Windows XP users a bit more and extend it's support.
      • natenovs, on 03/25/2008, -4/+5explain how the start menu is ruined. and don't forget you can set it to look like the old start menu too...
        the added security is no more annoying than sudo.
        • sapient2003, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1The Vista start menu annoys me. For an example, unlike XP, in Vista there is no Run option when you click on the Start Menu. Also, why should you need to click on All Programs to choose a program you want to open (obviously forget the Desktop shortcuts: it clutters it). Programs should be in their own categories, such as games, office, internet, graphics, audio, etc. sudo is hardly an annoyance compared to what Vista enforces. It is very seldom you need to use root privileges in Linux to get most desktop-related functions done. With Vista even when you put an installation CD in you are asked multiple times if you trust the source and whatnot.
          • MioTheGreat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+6You can put the run option back, but you don't need it. The start menu search bar acts like the run dialog.

            And generally an installer will ask once, and only once, for elevation. Any processes it then spawns will be elevated automatically.
          • grumpyrain, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Dude, just click the icon and start typing. It is one less mouse click than before. Each to their own though. The start menu on my XP laptop has 4 columns. On Vista, you just type the first few characters and hit enter when it guesses right.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Thinking you are retarded is a valid assumption for most of the Windows userbase. This is not an MS diss, though, we all know why the larger portion of retarded people would run Windows. (Because the mass majority runs it.) Ubuntu is gaining a large amount of retards though, I see large Smug clouds overshadowing the good properties and helpful users of Ubuntu.
      • BNash577, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4The only valid point you have there is system requirements. UAC can be turned off in the control panel and the start menu can be put back to original in the properties...
    • doshindude, on 03/25/2008, -3/+3It won't die for a long time, it has support till 2012 I believe. Even then, maybe MS will have another OS that could possibly replace XP (and it won't be Vista)
  • benbfree, on 03/25/2008, -26/+261Come back XP, we really don't love your sister Vista more. We thought she was prettier at first, but it turns out she's too fat and immature.
    • bryxal, on 03/25/2008, -8/+45More like she has genital herpes
    • consonance, on 03/25/2008, -5/+24Windows Vista is a man with a mustache pretending to be a supermodel wearing a fake mustache.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/25/2008, -2/+27XP isn't as pretty, but she is nice and will always be there for you....
      • doshindude, on 03/25/2008, -2/+16like a lifelong friend.
      • xptoast, on 03/25/2008, -0/+5It's weird to think that home PCs are not are all that old. Internet either. I wonder what computers will be like when I am dead. Maybe we won't exist by that time.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -4/+2I thought XP was prettier, Must be my preference for the geekier ones.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -4/+1Uhg, I should have mentioned I didn't actually think XP was better by appearance. This is a joke only another person with absolutely no life could get.
      • BNash577, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2Heres what I did...Download an XP skin. You get the slick black start menu and the cool buttons on the tops of pages. siiiiick brah!
    • makis, on 03/25/2008, -3/+2have you ever tried the new tcp/ip stack bundled with vista?
      • MisterThePlague, on 03/25/2008, -1/+7Is that the reason it's so ungodly slow to copy files over the LAN?
        • Zaggynl, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1Uhm, I've hit 12MB/s.
          Vista Ultimate SP1.
          Picture of it is at my home PC, arg.
  • goeric, on 03/25/2008, -11/+98"Will there be any way to get a copy of Windows XP after June 30?"

    Of course there will. http://www.thepiratebay.org
    • vitaminKUnit2, on 03/25/2008, -20/+3jmhyer51and Bungo already beat you too it.
      • jmhyer51, on 03/25/2008, -3/+23And yet he still gets dugg up, that's how much we love Bittorent.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/25/2008, -14/+4Public trackers! Haha...
      • ryodoan, on 03/25/2008, -0/+15because those private ones that save your data are so much better?
      • logandurand, on 03/25/2008, -0/+6How can having more people in the torrent possibly be a bad thing?
    • thedogfatherx, on 03/25/2008, -35/+5Don't promote illegal *****. Your just being a *****.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -5/+19This is Digg, not some MSDN forum.
      • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -1/+5A ***** with many, many diggs. Guess we're all ***** around here.
        • thedogfatherx, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1You must be in the "cool" club now.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Man, I'm so cool you could keep a side of beef in me for a month. I'm so hip I can barely see over my own pelvis.
  • wiretapped, on 03/25/2008, -23/+14Vista sponsored by NSA
  • misfit815, on 03/25/2008, -19/+45Still running win2k and quite happy about it.
    • GOVATENT, on 03/25/2008, -7/+14I am right there with you. What are your specs tho? Not my main machine tho (i use linux) the offiece server has it. I am an IT that was hiered to replace an old IT. So the network was in place already. I would have used Linux.
      • GOVATENT, on 03/25/2008, -17/+8hired sorry digg me down all you want grammer nazizs, i won't go down without a fight
      • 1randomguyO8, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1Your work for a IT call center India right?
    • insanebrain, on 03/25/2008, -3/+9Still running Ubuntu and .. . o . . wait.
  • EpidemiK, on 03/25/2008, -7/+32Will there be any way to get a copy of Windows XP after June 30?
    Yes.
    • 80hd, on 03/25/2008, -0/+10I wonder if using Microsoft will care about people pirating it though.
      I mean, if you pirate software that's no longer being sold because that's what you want to use, who can blame you?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+6Abandonware...? Seems all too soon.
        • Cronus6, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3MS (generally) takes a strong stand against abandonware (no clue why).
          They ran around a few years ago hitting web sites offering downloads of old versions of DOS and windows with cease and desist orders. And by old I mean DOS 2.10, and Win 3.1.

          If they were smart they would offer old version as freeware. No on in there right mind would use an OS that old on newer hardware anyway. But it is rather run to dust of an old IBM model 30 every once in a while...
      • mCanada, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2In this case they care. Very much so, the whole point of abandoning the software in question is to get you to upgrade. This isn't like some old version of Sim City that's hasn't seen a sale in 10 years. This is by design. Ergo they're not going to be thrilled if everyone continues to pirate XP and ignore Vista (but it's going to happen anyways and they know it). The path to Vista for MS is through new PC sales, which is what they can control. Only so many people are going to purposely opt for XP on a new box.
    • GrantTLC, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2I think Microsoft WILL care. Every XP install will mean a potential loss of revenue via a shiny new copy of Vista.
  • AppleMacMan, on 03/25/2008, -122/+8Thank God this root-kit, trojan horse and spam pumping bot infected nightmare will finally be put to rest. Time to wizen up and get a Mac people. 
    • computerusr, on 03/25/2008, -3/+45I could tell this would be an objective comment by reading your username.
      • grumpyrain, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2I thought the avatar gave it away.
    • aldableep3, on 03/25/2008, -3/+16wisen*
    • jmhyer51, on 03/25/2008, -8/+39Run along little troll, the adults are talking.
    • GOVATENT, on 03/25/2008, -3/+15wow...just wow. As soon as more important people and companies with money switch to mac, why would hackers attack windows anymore. You just wait. I will agree mac is getting a lot of attention. If it really makes it big to the point where companies start to use it, good bye mac users.
      • garvallagh, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1word on the street here is that its going the other way. Due to carbon footprint and tripe like that we are looking at getting rid of everything, and beefing up the WAN Links and putting thin clients on the desktops. Macs are very pretty n' all but they dont really have a serious enterprise deployment, mail, patching, distribution solution just yet.
    • fancyj, on 03/25/2008, -6/+7If everyone used a Mac it would eventually inherit most of the security issues that MS products have.
      • chewbie, on 03/25/2008, -5/+4actually most crap we get in XP was the result of sloppy coding. Macs would have virii and crapware too. Just not as much as we had in the good ol' IE6 days
        • fancyj, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2I don't disagree with the fact that Mac OS is a lot more sturdy than any MS OS. I just get sick of yuppies like AppleMacMan that think every computer issue can be solved by buying a Mac.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+6Honestly, It was the fault of the user model, I believe, that made XP so vulnerable.
        • fancyj, on 03/25/2008, -0/+5I'm sure the 75% MS user base had nothing to do with it.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Admittedly, I knew how to run XP with Firefox and not get viruses without even running any anti virus and with MS Firewall disabled. Understood. But still, the user model was pretty insecure. Lets see how badly someone can ***** up a well setup Linux machine with no root password as a regular user.
    • Arkz, on 03/25/2008, -2/+7I pity you
    • Ramble, on 03/25/2008, -9/+3Yes, get a Mac, and then rather than spending all your CPU time running botnets and the like you can spend it running your pretty user interface.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -5/+3But, however, with Mac, all you have is a pretty interface. And NOTHING ELSE. Just, huge variety of 'programs' out their for it, partially thanks to its crappy libraries, build environment, and compatibility between versions.
        • Roy911, on 03/25/2008, -3/+4Buried as false, You get a Unix machine.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Not exactly. Mac OS X is a very large application that runs atop a stripped Mach kernel. The software it runs can not be considered Unix binaries in an sense, nor can its driver, file hierarchy, or almost anything else be considered in any way Unix compliant.

            Hell, OS-X doesn't even fully respect POSIX (the basic set of standards that defines what's a Unix). Mind you, Darwin does. But Darwin is a modded BSD, not a gutted one.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Hah?! I run Linux, and I actually like it. FreeBSD was cool too.. Something wrong with Unix? OSX is NOT a typical Unix anyway...
      • GoldYoshi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Once more:
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc
    • KloroFormd, on 03/25/2008, -1/+10In the time it took me to get this far reading comments, you gained 23 buries. Nice.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/25/2008, -3/+5You can overpay for your RAM eating machine if you like.
    • sgtpppr, on 03/25/2008, -2/+12"Hi, my name is AppleMacMan and i base my life around helping to promote a corporation's product line." Seriously, there has to be something more to live for than tossing Job's salad.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3How tired of one person must someone get to try to find and kill them? I'm nearing it with AppleMacMan.
    • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -0/+6Please stop being the type of douche that makes people hate Mac users.
    • GoldYoshi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Yet again I have to read your *****. Thanks for reminding me to hit the nifty block button. (Seriously, I forgot to hit it before) Yet again I reply with:
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc
    • robthom, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3You should be hoping every one DOESN'T get a mac, because if they did thats what all the virus' would be written for silly.
    • jmg703, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3I have BOTH and I hate people like you who make mac users look like *****.
      • birdieb23, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Man I so agree with you, I have a PC and a Macbook, and they both have good and bad points. Then people like this ***** who just use a mac go and make us other mac users look like a bunch of arrogant *****!
  • Ramble, on 03/25/2008, -34/+42Fine by me, I've been running Vista full time since september 2006 and have not looked back since.
    • MrZop, on 03/25/2008, -15/+27agreed. Most of the people bitching about Vista haven't used it full time, and on top of that, most are bitching about glitches and problems that have been resolved, and haven't been around since RC2. I have not had any problems with vista and it runs perfectly smooth. no glitches, no freezes, works faster than XP did on the same machine. SP1 is great for Network/Data transfer speeds. It's more secure. Simply a better OS. Legacy DOS games are XP's only real strongpoint in my requirements. That's the only reason i keep a XP machine.
      • TruthSerum44, on 03/25/2008, -10/+6That's complete and utter crap, I'm sorry. I happen to like Vista, as I think it looks nicer than XP and has numerous other upgrades. But to say it works faster than XP did on the same machine is just plain wrong. Look for the billion benchmarks out there, they all say the same thing: XP = Faster.
        • MioTheGreat, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4XP is not always faster.

          Generally, cold app start times are longer on XP. A few video games actually get better performance under Vista than XP now, as well.
      • chewbie, on 03/25/2008, -4/+7I really don't get where people come up with the "It runs faster than XP" part.
        It might have faster boot times but games are noticeably slower
      • Focher, on 03/25/2008, -4/+4First, you seem to like making blanket statements which summarily reject a message you don't like. Many of us continue to use Vista and think it is complete crap both compared to XP and compared to what else is on the market. And SP1's release, along with the fact that it still doesn't fix the underlying performance problem of Vista, pretty much shatters your claim that the glitches and problems haven't been around since RC2.

        Second, there is not a single performance test you can cite which suggests SP1 makes Vista great for network transfer speeds. The one thing that was changed is the lowering of priority in relation to real time media playback, but even that still throttles network performance.

        I say this as a Vista Ultimate 64 Bit user on a QX9650 with 4GB of RAM. I keep wondering if I still find performance well below my expectation, what can anyone else expect?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -4/+4"...Faster.." lol, Tried any OpenGL programs?
        "no glitches, no freezes" Aero Used to give me ***** all the time. With it off, though, all you had was that ***** ugly Vista basic theme, or the ***** old Windows classic theme...
        • MioTheGreat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3The OpenGL situation was fixed over a year ago. Yes, I do occasionally use an app or two that uses OpenGL. They run fine.

          Aero shouldn't be giving you any ***** unless you've got really bad graphics drivers. I've only ever had the DWM crash once, and it was due to using beta drivers, nearly a year ago.
      • 0ceanic, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1i also like vista. but i absolutely hate pop ups. and despite turning off automatic updates (i still manually), uap, the trend of the operating system part of it to go wizard after dialog after wizard to change settings, really pisses me off.

        i have no doubt that alot of the underlying tech and structure might be better or simpler, but im hating the interfaces access to operating system details. i want everything in 1 window just a massive tree of tweakable settings.
      • steeeeve, on 03/25/2008, -2/+0But you had to buy a new computer with tons of RAM for it, am i right?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/25/2008, -17/+9You should. Vista is a piece of *****.
    • 80hd, on 03/25/2008, -6/+11I just recently went to XP SP2 on my main computer after 14 months of Vista Business.
      If you think it's not that bad, grab a spare hard drive and toss XP on your computer, the difference in speed is like an entirely new computer.
      • jonjo, on 03/25/2008, -7/+4I call BS - Vista runs a lot quicker than XP did on my PC
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4then you either ran too much / too bloated Antivirus software, or not enough Antivirus software...
      • ncgmac, on 04/03/2008, -0/+0I know what you mean. I installed MS-DOS 5.0 on my ASUS laptop and it ran superfast compared to Vista. It even played all my PC games from 1991. They don't work in Vista, so Vista sux....
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1I had crashing problems and incompatibility problems... And maybe I'm the only one who experienced Aero instability...
      • lilsis, on 03/25/2008, -3/+1that makes two of us. still constantly dealing with 'unexpected shutdowns'

        the best part is when you check online for the solution it tells you "the problem was caused by Windows Vista"

        at least it's honest
      • Schoffstall, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1yes
      • 0ceanic, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2i have as well, but only on ***** computers. or computers that require barely updated proprietary graphic drivers.
    • robthom, on 03/25/2008, -6/+5You must really like shiny objects too huh.
    • PueSi, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I don't use XP anymore, at first Vista seemed weird but now i can appreciate the changes.
      Although i should mention that i used to run Vista on 512MB an it was meh, upgraded to 2GB and it runs great.
  • wtfmate112, on 03/25/2008, -43/+33You ***** cry babies. Vista isn't so bad for everyday users. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. Then again my favorite pastime isn't overclocking computers.
    • Murdats, on 03/25/2008, -11/+4why would vista be a problem for overclocking computers, I will be OC'ing mine shortly and I have friends who already have OC'ed vista boxes.
      • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/25/2008, -2/+12He's saying only computer nerds dislike Vista.
      • sgtpppr, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4I think you inadvertently helped make his point.
    • Tenlow, on 03/25/2008, -5/+7Well there are a large group of people (such as myself) who don't own the processing power required for vista. XP runs really fast. Vista may function. Not a hard choice. A large quantity of computer sold with vista on them don't even have the required processing power to run vista.
      It sure does look pretty and they're doing a great job of ironing the bugs out of it, but it's just not "there" yet.
      • thedogfatherx, on 03/25/2008, -2/+5You are 100% correct.
      • 11oops, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1It sounds to me like YOU'RE just not 'there' yet. I do own the processing power required for Vista (and it isn't all that significant) and Vista runs really fast. XP does run faster, but holy ***** does '98 just fly!

        Vista is there, but your hardware isn't. That isn't Vista's fault, but your own. There is nothing wrong with that because if XP on your hardware works for you, then great! Why upgrade? But to say Vista isn't there is an incorrect statement .
    • FDDIcent, on 03/25/2008, -2/+11As an in-home pc technician I have to say a lot of "everday" users are having me downgrade their vista computers back to XP.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/25/2008, -1/+10I've seen brand new computers that lag when running vista. XP uses less resources and is much smoother to use.
      • 11oops, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1That is such a tired argument. I've seen brand new computers that lag when running XP. This isn't due to the OS, but rather to all the ***** PC manufacturers preload onto the machine. This, of course, hasn't changed just because Vista is the OEM OS. If you want to see what Vista is capable of, then please, try it with a clean install -- you might be surprised.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I was running a Linux + Vista dual boot setup. I had several problems not even related to the dual boot. Vista...
      1. Does not run some programs i absolutely need, properly
      2. Is slower than XP, especially with OpenGL programs
      3. Sometimes bluescreens on Aero for me after bootup.
      I say this often, But honestly, I haven't ran Vista in a long time - I remember all of these problems quite well, because its the reason i had to move back to XP + Linux... XP got hosed (when I installed a new Mobo) and I ended up with Linux... Which is, honestly, what i'm typing this in. XP is still one of my fav. OS's of all time though.
    • robthom, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Vista is perfect for simpletons with low standards.
  • SQLserver, on 03/25/2008, -17/+10The Pirate Bay?
  • zn3t50, on 03/25/2008, -8/+42seriuosly, MS needs to sell what consumers want, *not* what they want.
    • triskele, on 03/25/2008, -9/+6I think your * * should've ended up around "they", but dugg despite improper emphasis.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+5Your pointing out emphasis and yet Seriously is misspelled :P
        • triskele, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Well that's likely a case of either fat fingers or keyboard dyslexia. It's a little harder to misplace a set of asterisks. And since it's not capitalized, which you did not point out, most people will either read over the error or skip right to the MS and start reading from there.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Understood, I was being ironic.
      • Namaha, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3You also didn't point out his unclear reference. As is, his sentence says "MS needs to sell what consumers want, not what consumers want.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/25/2008, -2/+9What did you just say?
    • robthom, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Thats not how a totalitarian regime works.
  • galets, on 03/25/2008, -28/+16Ubuntu is a solution for ya pepol. Quit scruing around with dang M$, go try real thing
    • Ramble, on 03/25/2008, -6/+17I have. It sucks, I can't listen to anything or watch tv properly, and before you shout claims of get help - I've ran Gentoo many a time, I'm not incompetent with Linux.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -4/+2I hate n00buntu because its users... well... they do that. The commonly shared 'I'm better than you because I use Linux' attitude among Ubuntards gets old. Its not even that great, its just user friendly. That's all people. Move along. OpenSuSE, Sabayon, Debian, Gentoo, and Mandriva have came..
    • slipkn0tz23, on 03/25/2008, -0/+5Thanks for slaughtering my native language, you dick.
  • CYR1X, on 03/25/2008, -5/+31Most pointless article ever, all it did was bring up the vista vs xp debate.
    • chrisaug18, on 03/25/2008, -2/+8And the occasional vs Mac and Linux
    • hcharger, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0 What's so pointless about this article. I would say with the comment number figures and climbing, that people are interested in it.
  • Bradzor, on 03/25/2008, -19/+9Oh my god, stop suggesting torrents or the Pirate Bay. The article obviously means LEGALLY.
  • samkline, on 03/25/2008, -30/+53XP is gone, great. Now we need to work on getting rid of Vista, which is even worse!
    http://www.debian.org
    • MioTheGreat, on 03/25/2008, -10/+4Worse how?

      Features? Security? Stability? Because it's got all of those better than XP. Performance? That's been fixed with driver updates and SP1. You're basically running Server 2008 with Vista SP1.
      • chewbie, on 03/25/2008, -6/+5hahaahahhahaaahhaahahahhahahahahahahhah
        http://gizmodo.com/337768/battlemodo-windows-vista ...
        hah
        • bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2Hah?

          What is this, some kind of pissing match? Please run along.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -3/+2Stability: NO.
        And its incompatible with some software, i have experienced this first hand.
        And I require heavy use of OpenGL, Which happens to be running slower in Vista for me...
        • 11oops, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Stability: YES.
          You yourself state that you haven't run Vista in awhile. Load it up, get the updates that have since been released, check your hardware manufacturers for update drivers, and bingo.... problems solved. You'll still have the issue of incompatible software, however you can't blame the OS for that. Most software manufacturers have had years now to push out updates to their software, and the majority have.

          OpenGL support was greatly improved in a recent patch. Please try to keep up with current events relevant to the topic.
  • zdiddy85, on 03/25/2008, -14/+4*****
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4I see.
      • theHM, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3... as the blind man said to his deaf daughter.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1lol, I hafta remember that one...
      • zdiddy85, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2there was a comment there...

        it said "I'm pretty happy with vista."
  • alex199, on 03/25/2008, -28/+6I guess you'll have no choice but to give into the "Get a Mac" commercials and get a mac!
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Well, At least this person isn't as annoying as AppleMacMan.
    • vdog, on 03/25/2008, -0/+5Absolutely. Just as soon as all my games run on it.
    • Cronus6, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4Winged pigs will fly out of my ass before I buy an Apple product of any kind.
  • GOVATENT, on 03/25/2008, -9/+6It might be a bad thing to say, but i think that by the time XP ends, they might have their act together with one of the new os systems. I know people will still have some smart ass comment to make cause I said something positive about M$, but w/e. Either way it does not effect me unless people stop working on linux.
    • Focher, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I think you are correct that Vista will be improved over time, but there will have to be some significant architectural changes (similar to the scale of changes that happened in the NT 3.1 -> 3.51 -> 4.0 -> 2000 adjustments). I doubt that Microsoft will just toss Vista out completely, but they really missed the boat because they failed to realise that the market situation has changed for them. Not only are they competing with their own product in XP, but Macs are now an extremely viable option in the consumer market.
  • rizenality, on 03/25/2008, -15/+8I'm running Vista Ultimate 64-bit that I got free from intel last year. I'm not sure why people hate it so much. I don't have too much that I can think of that doesn't work.
    • noahhoward, on 03/25/2008, -7/+5The fact that you can think of anything that doesn't work is not a good start.
    • heresy_fnord, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2I have Vista Ultimate 64bit and everything works just fine for me.
    • 11oops, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2I love that you're dugg down for not bashing Vista. How dare you think for yourself! Vista Ultimate 32 with absolutely no issues since install.
  • RadiatedAnt, on 03/25/2008, -1/+12This article failed when I read "Will you be able to get a copy"
  • tsupersonic, on 03/25/2008, -1/+9Aww, I'm going to miss XP. Still nice to have a dual boot XP/Vista system.
  • TheSabre, on 03/25/2008, -3/+20Why wouldn't there be a way?
    Support is NOT ending for XP. Reread the product lifecycle support on Microsoft.com:

    "Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first."

    The XP support lifecycle ends 6/30/2008 as long as no service packs are released before then. Microsoft announced XP SP3 would be released the second half of April. This means that the lifecycle extends another 24 months from THAT date because it comes first compared to the product lifecycle end date. If Microsoft released SP3 in April, as planned, XP support will be available until April 2010.
    • prol, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2That seems to read whichever comes first between 24 months after the next service pack release or the product's support lifecycle. Since the lifecycle will end before the 24 months after a service pack release, support will end at the end of the product's lifecycle, which you said is 6/30/2008. Maybe there is more context to the statement that I'm missing, though.
      • TheSabre, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Right. But that date is for the XP SP2 support lifecycle. Support will end for XP SP2 on 6/30/08. You'll still be able to buy XP SP3 until well into 2010.
        • prol, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0Oh, I was considering all service packs to be part of the XP product. If that is not how it works, then I see what you're saying.
          • TheSabre, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1It will be similar to how XP Pro (sans SP) ended in 2003, XP SP1 ended in 2006 and now XP SP2 will end in 2008. And XP SP3 will begin when the service pack is released.
    • Rizzler, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4Uhm, the whichever comes first is in reference to the date of the two occurrences. So in this case, 6/30/2008 comes before the 24 month period post service pack 3, in turn meaning June 30th happens first and is the deadline for XP support. At least, that's how we use the "whichever comes first" at the major computer retail company I work for.
  • djdingo, on 03/25/2008, -16/+10This is the beginning of the end for Microsoft, mark my words.
    • LittleLORDevil, on 03/25/2008, -2/+7History repeats itself, Vista is just a stepping stone. Kinda' like another OS we know called Windows ME.
      • UKsHaDoW, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1If thats true, then ms will crash, just like ibm, and apple when they ruled.

        But that won't happen for ages.
      • MioTheGreat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Nonsense.

        ME was the _end_ of a whole operating system design. Vista is more like Windows 2000: Tons of new driver models, gigantic, sweeping behind the scenes changes, incompatibility early on in its release.
    • 80hd, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4kind of.
      Microsoft will be a lot like AOL. A number of people will stick around because they think that windows=computer just like the internet was = AOL.
      I'm just curious to see who will lead the exodus.
      If MS wanted to be smart about it, they would release XP free to the public and focus on charging for business software updates. Office and Exchange are where MS still knows how to be in the game.
    • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Vista == ME'08
  • Clodhopper, on 03/25/2008, -12/+6i dont even pay for windows, and as long as you can pirate it, i never will. Windows XP isn't going anywhere.
  • Chunken, on 03/25/2008, -12/+27When Vista first came out it was a little buggy but now it's super solid. No reason to even think about going back to XP. Some people just love to hate Microsoft, they did the same thing when XP came out.
    • Focher, on 03/25/2008, -3/+6Yeah, super solid. So super solid that I spent an entire weekend trying to reinstall Vista 64 bit because it bluescreens when installing on many machines with 4GB of RAM. Fine, we can all admit they have released patches and fixed bugs - but "super solid"?
    • luchid, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3This is reason enough:
      http://gizmodo.com/337768/battlemodo-windows-vista ...
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/25/2008, -4/+2Hah... I was excited when XP was coming out. Vista? A little, but i was worried, and rightfully so... I HAD to switch back because of issues. I need to try SP1, but the whole copying+network transfers thing is gonna annoy me.