Re: So help save Windows XP

 

On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, w...@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote:

> In article <d78a0e09-80c7-4fa7-8b7e-537e7d9e0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> >Actually, Windows 98, 2000, ME, and XP OEM licenses are tied to the

> >specific machine being purchased.

>

> They're tied to the hardware. If you upgrade the machine the

> license remains valid. Upgrade is undefined.

 

Actually, even that's subjective. With Windows XP, you have to call

Microsoft (not a toll free call), tell them exactly what you did, and

let them decide whether or not you should pay extra for a license.

Generally, if you do that, even if they decide that it's too much of

an upgrade, the fee for the new license will be much less than if you

had to go out and buy a new one.

 

You will have to call Microsoft for increases in memory crossing any

256 megabyte boundry, installing a larger disk drive, or installing a

faster CPU. Some things like motherboard replacement are sure-fire

triggers for a credit card payment.

 

Remember that with Vista, Microsoft has the right to completely

disable your computer, and demand full payment for a retail license if

they don't like your upgrades or configurations. In addition, certain

upgrades can void your warranty.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, w...@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote:

>> In article <d78a0e09-80c7-4fa7-8b7e-537e7d9e0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> >Actually, Windows 98, 2000, ME, and XP OEM licenses are tied to the

>> >specific machine being purchased.

>>

>> They're tied to the hardware. If you upgrade the machine the

>> license remains valid. Upgrade is undefined.

>

> Actually, even that's subjective. With Windows XP, you have to call

> Microsoft (not a toll free call), tell them exactly what you did, and

> let them decide whether or not you should pay extra for a license.

> Generally, if you do that, even if they decide that it's too much of

> an upgrade, the fee for the new license will be much less than if you

> had to go out and buy a new one.

>

> You will have to call Microsoft for increases in memory crossing any

> 256 megabyte boundry, installing a larger disk drive, or installing a

> faster CPU. Some things like motherboard replacement are sure-fire

> triggers for a credit card payment.

>

> Remember that with Vista, Microsoft has the right to completely

> disable your computer, and demand full payment for a retail license if

> they don't like your upgrades or configurations. In addition, certain

> upgrades can void your warranty.

 

Well Rexx, I hope you make that clear to all the people you are selling

closed source solutions to. I doubt it. But as you, and I know, nearly

everything you say is mere rattling of the COLA cage.

 

--

"Give it up because going on the offensive, and you are quite offensive, is

not going to cover up your trolling and nym shifting blunders no matter now

many times you re-post the same text."

-- "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Jun 14, 1:19 am, Nick Ballard <nrball...@gmail.com> wrote:

> cheley_bonstel...@live.com wrote:

> > XP Death Watch

> >http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/05/27/XP-deathwatch-T-minus-five-...

>

> > Even though it has had its own problems of late, Windows XP remains

> > the most-used version of Windows. The newest data from Web metrics

> > vendor Net Applications, for example,

 

More importantly, as a percentage of the total market, Vista is even a

bigger "bomb" than Windows NT 3.x launched in 1994. Remember that

that release was so bad that Microsoft announced "Chicago" (later

known as Windows 95) almost immediately, largely to keep OEMs and

Corporate customers from opting for OS/2, UnixWare, or Linux.

 

After 18 months, Vista is still having trouble keeping up with Mac and

Linux, who combined, have captured more market than Vista. In fact,

if Microsoft had to report the number of "Vista Business Edition"

licenses that were actually shipped as XP Professional "downgrades" -

as the actual XP licenses, it would show that XP is the majority of

the market.

> > pegs XP as driving 73 percent of the personal computers that went

> > online last month,

 

Which means that 3 out of 4 PCs sold are being sold as "XP

Professional" and being reported by Microsoft in their SEC filings as

"Vista Business Edition".

> > five times the nearest competitor, Microsoft's own Windows Vista.

 

Meanwhile, people are paying premium prices for Macs, while Vista

desktop machines have fallen below the $200 "floor" - many OEMs are

loosing a fortune on the unpopularity of Vista. Retailers have pretty

much thrown in the towel. CompUSA closed all of it's retail stores in

the northeast, along with most of their retail stores in the rest of

the country because the Vista market was such a loser market.

 

People were going into the showroom, looking at vista, low resolution

wide screen displays, and insufficient memory - then ordering the

computers online, with higher resolution screens, extra memory, 7200

RPM drives, and XP instead of Vista as the operating system.

> > Which is why an impending deadline five weeks from today is important.

>

> > According to Microsoft, June 30 is the last day it will permit

> > retailers and OEMs to sell

> > the nearly seven-year-old operating system.

 

Microsoft might have been able to pull this off if they had a really

hot product that everybody was crazy about. Windows 95 and Windows 98

were that kind of product. Microsoft attempted to "Force Feed" XP to

the market, and many companies seriously considered pulling the plug

on Microsoft altogether.

 

Corporate executives, especially the CEO, COO, and CFO have seen this

coming for almost 2 years now, and any CIO who thinks that they will

be able to go to the board and demand huge sums of money for Vista

upgrades will probably find himself unemployed very quickly.

 

Other companies have announced official "sunset" policies, pushing the

transition from Microsoft proprietary products and formats to Open

Document Format, Open Source Software, Platform Independent

applications, and Linux ready computers. As a result, they are

prepared to make the transition to Linux or Mac.

 

Microsoft is very likely overplaying a weak hand, and they have bet

the farm on a huge bluff that too many corporate customers are

prepared to call.

 

Remember that many corporations have already purchased enough XP

licenses for every employee, up to the maximum number of employees

they've ever employed from 1999 to 2008, and these licenses ARE

transferrable. Furthermore, because Microsoft got greedy and sold

these companies licenses instead of upgrades, these licenses can be

installed on machines sold with Linux, as VM appliances.

 

Microsoft's greed and arrogance has finally put them in the position

for a really big problem. If they actually hold to their "death

watch" date, it could be that Dell, HP, Lenovo and Acer, the top 5

OEMs, will be putting Linux boxes on the retail shelves, complete with

fully configured Linux, and a nice collection of hundreds of

applications that would have to be purchased separately for Vista

machines.

 

If Microsoft attempts to strong-arm them again, there is a good chance

that the OEMs will be dragging Microsoft through the federal courts,

and pushing for further extensions to the DOJ remedy oversight.

 

The one thing that is crystal clear is that if Microsoft tries to

force the Industry to transition to Vista, the industry is very likely

to cut Microsoft out of it's future migration plans.

> > <SNIP>

>

> Great. Let them shoot themselves in the foot.

 

Seems to be the attitude of lots of people these days. Microsoft has

lost most of the "good will" equity they have held for years. More

and more companies and end-users are installing open source

technologies including FireFox, OpenOffice, and multiplatform Java

applications. Many have rolled out desktop virtualization as well.

And if Microsoft tries to kill XP in hopes of forcing them to Vista,

it's highly likely that a substantial portion - perhaps 1/2 or even

3/4 of those XP desktop users will be switched over to Linux or Mac.

 

Worse, corporate customers may put a moratorium on new PCs until they

can make the full transition, or they will require any employee who

wants to purchase a Vista machine to purchase it with their own funds,

or will be deducted from their bonuses, while those who are willing to

accept Linux machines will have their new machines fully funded by the

company.

> Vista is a crippled, DRM-infested piece of crap that makes a dual-core

> AMD64 machine perform like a Pentium II.

 

It's ironic that all of the "Linux hostile" tactics and "features"

that were intended to "lock in" the market may be the very features

that have resulted in the most aggressive rejection of Microsoft since

1994.

 

In 1994, Linux was very young. Red Hat was willing to offer Linux to

OEMs for $2/copy on a nonexclusive basis (the OEMs could install BOTH

Linux and Windows). It was Microsoft who decided to play "hardball",

reformatting hard drives before installing Windows 95, mandating to

OEMs and IHVs that Microsoft assign the PCI vendor and device code and

that the codes be kept seccret. Few people knew about Linux, and it's

likely that if they had seen Linux on PCs displayed on Retail Shelves,

that Linux would have blown Windows NT 3.1 AND Windows 3.1 completely

out of the water in 1994-5, it might have even blown away Windows 95

in 1995-1997.

 

Microsoft did everything they could to keep Linux off the retail

shelves, but the genie is out of the bottle. About 4 blocks from Wall

Street, J&R has ASUS EEE machines on display, running Linux, and it's

clear that Linux can do the most popular functions of a PC on a

machine that is 1/2 the memory, disk, and CPU speed of an XP system

and about 1/4 the hardware of a Vista machine.

 

Users see that Linux can boot up and be fully functional in less time

than it takes for XP or Vista to just get to the "splash screen".

 

Several Motherboard manufacturers are now including Linux core

functionality in their motherboards, meaning that even if Microsoft

wanted to they couldn't lock Linux out of the machine since the core

OS calls are actually being carried out by Linux.

 

OEMs are becoming more and more aware that desktop virtualization is

the "next big thing" and Vista is too much of a resource pig to be the

primary operating system. Furthermore, if users see that applications

launched by Linux are faster than the ones launched in the Vista

Virtual machine, then it's likely that Vista will be launched only

when absolutely necessary rather than as the "preferred" operating

system.

> If MSFT seriously thinks that

> it's somehow advantageous to push this sorry excuse for an OS onto the

> general public, they deserve to go out of business.

 

Microsoft won't be going out of business any time soon, but revenues

from Vista and Microsoft Office will make up a smaller and smaller

portion of their revenue as they look elsewhere for revenue sources.

 

Microsoft has been able to gradually reduce their dependence on

Windows license revenue, windows support revenue, and even office

revenue. They have moved more aggressively into the game market with

Xbox, they have expanded their services offerings and are gaining more

revenue from web sites. They also hold substantial interest in 3rd

party sites, which pay them royalties equivalent to as much as 1/2

their commissions or profits.

> Windows XP isn't the only option if you're trying to avoid Vista. There

> are Linux, BSD, OS X, and Solaris...all of which have been gaining

> serious application support in the form of native 3rd-party apps and

> compatibility libraries such as WINE.

 

For the last 10 years, there has been a very agressive move away from

the "Microsoft-only" development languages and libraries, and a more

aggressive move toward the "Multiplatform" tools, libraries, and

APIs. Even before the Clinton Administration pressed the Antitrust

case, Microsoft's attempt to subvert Netscape from the market became a

clear warning to software vendors that nothing was sacred, and that

they needed to be prepared to support multiple markets. Microsoft

could easily "lock them out" of the Windows market with shovelware

from a third-rate competitor making a knock-off, but by supporting

multiplatform, they could still maintain a sizable chunk of revenue

selling support and services, especially to corporate customers, by

supporting Linux and Unix as well as Windows.

 

Throughout most of the industry, the revenue model for software has

shifted from the "license and royalties" paradigm to the "consulting

and support" model. Ironically, Microsoft tried this model, but never

really figured it out. The result has been that huge companies like

IBM, Accenture, and CSC have been able to provide outstanding support

for OSS and UNIX software while the support for Windows software has

been gradually degrading into the "5 Rs" (restart, reboot, reinstall

app, reinstall windows, rebuild everything), with very little ability

to reliably recover from virus attacks, or even misguided patches that

trashed 3rd party software.

 

P.S. You're doing a great job of posting Nick, keep up the good work.

(Nick is my son).

 

Rex Ballard

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

In article <8f0a3756-dc97-413a-9429-b99023561595@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>Actually, even that's subjective. With Windows XP, you have to call

>Microsoft (not a toll free call), tell them exactly what you did, and

>

 

That hasn't been my experience at all. 80% of the time even a major

upgrade seems to cause no problems. Every other time all I've ever had

to do is call MS and talk to the robot. I think exactly ONCE I had to

talk to a person. That's once in, what, 7 years?

 

>You will have to call Microsoft for increases in memory crossing any

>256 megabyte boundry, installing a larger disk drive, or installing a

>faster CPU. Some things like motherboard replacement are sure-fire

>triggers for a credit card payment.

>

 

Again, that hasn't been my experience. I've done hundreds if not

thousands of XP upgrades and never once been asked to pay a fee. And

seldom been denied an activation. It seems to me based on the work I've

done with XP that you practically need to install the license on a completely

new system (say, moving the disc drive to a new motherboard and case) to

trigger an activation denial. I have test systems that I move parts around

on several times in a day, do reinstalls, and even then only sometimes have

to call to activate. And when I do I only need the robot.

 

Just last month I did this: Receive old AMD 2000+ system

"running slow". Replace CPU with AMD 2400, replace old 20MB with new 100MB,

reinstall XP. Measure perfomance, not much of a change. Replace crappy

old VIA KT266 motherboard with not quite as crappy KT800, AMD 2800, and

333 memory. Reinstall. Still no problems. Next day receive Nvidia 3

motherboard, AMD 3000/64, and PC3200 RAM as pull. Swap in for KT800 setup.

Reinstall. Activation fails, type long magic number to robot, type long

magic number from robot, congratulations you've activated windows (again).

>Remember that with Vista, Microsoft has the right to completely

>disable your computer, and demand full payment for a retail license if

 

Didn't they remove that in SP1?

>upgrades can void your warranty.

 

Warranty? All it says is "we make no guarantees and take no

responsibility" anyway.

In article <5a06c325-db2e-48cc-bc5f-ba9e1472b85d@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>known as Windows 95) almost immediately, largely to keep OEMs and

>Corporate customers from opting for OS/2, UnixWare, or Linux.

>

 

Linux? In 1994? Please.

>In 1994, Linux was very young. Red Hat was willing to offer Linux to

 

Redhat didn't begin commercial distribution until 1996.

>Linux and Windows). It was Microsoft who decided to play "hardball",

>reformatting hard drives before installing Windows 95, mandating to

>OEMs and IHVs that Microsoft assign the PCI vendor and device code and

 

I don't understand this.

>Several Motherboard manufacturers are now including Linux core

>functionality in their motherboards, meaning that even if Microsoft

>wanted to they couldn't lock Linux out of the machine since the core

>OS calls are actually being carried out by Linux.

>

I don't understand this, either.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

Rex Ballard wrote:

> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, w...@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote:

>> In article <d78a0e09-80c7-4fa7-8b7e-537e7d9e0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Actually, Windows 98, 2000, ME, and XP OEM licenses are tied to the

>>> specific machine being purchased.

>> They're tied to the hardware. If you upgrade the machine the

>> license remains valid. Upgrade is undefined.

>

> Actually, even that's subjective. With Windows XP, you have to call

> Microsoft (not a toll free call), tell them exactly what you did,

 

FALSE! All you need to tell them is this:

 

Mandatory Product Activation Data

The Installation ID is unique to each product and comprises two components:

The country in which the product is being installed (for Office XP and

Office XP family products only)

 

Anything else is NONE of the activation desk person's business!

 

See:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/mpa.aspx

 

Alias

and

> let them decide whether or not you should pay extra for a license.

> Generally, if you do that, even if they decide that it's too much of

> an upgrade, the fee for the new license will be much less than if you

> had to go out and buy a new one.

>

> You will have to call Microsoft for increases in memory crossing any

> 256 megabyte boundry, installing a larger disk drive, or installing a

> faster CPU. Some things like motherboard replacement are sure-fire

> triggers for a credit card payment.

>

> Remember that with Vista, Microsoft has the right to completely

> disable your computer, and demand full payment for a retail license if

> they don't like your upgrades or configurations. In addition, certain

> upgrades can void your warranty.

>

>

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

> Charlie Tame wrote:

>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>>> Too late:

>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

>>

>> I disagree a bit with that, the crucial factor was always extending

>> support. Another 6 years is a pretty good achievement in terms of

>> getting a big corporation to listen to customers. So instead of too late

>> maybe "Just in time" would be the key.

>

> Apples & oranges. Windows Life Cycle policy (for WinXP) hasn't changed,

> Charlie: WinXP SP3 will have Extended Support until 08 April 2014.

> Support for WinXP SP2 ends 13 July 1010. More:

> http://msmvps.com/blogs/donna/archive/2008/06/14/end-of-support-xp-service-pack-2.aspx

>

 

 

My point is that the pressure to extend was there but not clearly

visible at first. Obviously MS did listen, but made insufficient effort

to clarify the situation.

 

Also, the removal of XP from retail stores raises another question. Many

machines out there cannot run Vista. Many of the original CDs, OEM or

otherwise are lost. What happens to those machines in the event of a

hard drive failure or some virus damage? This has not been too

reassuring for customers.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OanuuEkzIHA.4676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Too late: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

 

What a line of feltercarb.

 

MS wants people to repurchase an OS ever three years or so. It helps

revenue to make the next billions for Bill, Steve and crew. It does not

have to be good, even if you don't need it because we are good.

 

See, I summarized pages of hard sell and filler into three sentences.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:eEmRRllzIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>> Too late: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

>

>

> I disagree a bit with that, the crucial factor was always extending

> support. Another 6 years is a pretty good achievement in terms of getting

> a big corporation to listen to customers. So instead of too late maybe

> "Just in time" would be the key. Poor Vista sales are not just the result

> of complaints, there is a small but noticeable financial crisis in the US

> right now, we are both in the middle of it. Forecast of $5 a gallon gas, a

> billion dollar loss of crops which will inflate food prices, layoffs all

> around and no end in sight in Iraq means that if the Government will not

> tighten their belts the public will do it for them. MS will be smart to

> recognize this. People are not going to invest $1000+ in a new computer

> unless they really can be confident it's "Disposable" income.

 

Offset by more people working at home, choosing XP and not Vista.

 

Know one person buying a PC, getting in under the wire but getting it with

XP and not Vista. Theirs broke and their work does not support Vista yet.

"Hayden Kirk" <hayden@mobilepc.co.nz> wrote in message

news:Ot5dobdzIHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>I sell Vista to many businesses.

>

> They don't reject it at all. Just stop using min speced hardware, or

> hardware under min spec. That's the reason it runs so slow. My customers

> want a good 64bit system. 64bit Vista is a lot better than 64bit XP.

>

> Do some homework, half of you sound like you haven't got a clue.

>

> - Hayden

 

I loaded 64 bit Ubuntu on it. Works great.

"DS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.com> wrote in message

news:4853ccec$0$30195$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 05:25:36 +0000, the wharf rat wrote:

>

>> In article <Ot5dobdzIHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, Hayden Kirk

>> <hayden@mobilepc.co.nz> wrote:

>>>

>>>My customers want a good 64bit system.

>>

>> Why?

>

> Possibly because that is what he recommends to them.

>

> For instance, SolidWorks resellers recommend a 64 bit system to their

> users strictly based on being able to use more than 3+ gigs of RAM for

> the application.

 

Good choice. Each version of MS-Windows is bigger, and there are those that

consider 3GB a minimum for Vista. Win7? No one knows, but 3GB might be the

minimum.

"Clear Windows" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote in message

news:4853e0f0$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> He (Hayden Kirk) is stupid....

>

> I could recommend a hummer jeep for everyone, but the extra cost makes no

> sense for people in the city...

> Sure it could travel any terrain but at what cost?

>

> Having a super duper 64 bit 4 core 8 gb system just so vista can work is

> crazy.. Most of that power goes to the OS itself anyway..

 

I have a super dupper 4 core 8GB system, and my 7 year old laptop running

either Linux or XP copies faster over the network or disk to disk. Big

a$$ed systems help a lot, but their is a lot of waste of processing going

in. Vista is not very efficient inside. While grandma reading email may

not notice, performance users do.

> Vista is poorly designed and that's why its hated worldwide by billions.

>

> the world it turning to more efficient, greener, less power hungry,

> faster, better designed OS's and computers

>

> Vista is the last of its kind... a freak of nature... a dinosaur that will

> be exhibited in a museum as the biggest mistake MS ever made.

 

Yep, the next generation of economical systems like EeePC have no room for

Vista requirements nor its pricing. That is why Microsoft had to selectively

allow resale of XP to EeePCs. There marketing and engineering blew the mark

on what users want and had to backpeddle on a total XP retirement plan.

 

But still, EeePC continues to do quite well on the Linux version sales, the

cat is out of the bag. While Dell touted Linux support, it has half a$$ed

and business only. Asus and others, different story.

"Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e369fd57-0eb0-4cc2-ab6e-177719416934@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 13, 8:52 pm, cheley_bonstel...@live.com wrote:

>> XP Death Watch

>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/05/27/XP-deathwatch-T-minus-five-...

>>

>> Even though it has had its own problems of late, Windows XP remains

>> the most-used version of Windows. The newest data from Web metrics

>> vendor Net Applications, for example,

>> pegs XP as driving 73 percent of the personal computers that went

>> online last month,

>>

>> five times the nearest competitor, Microsoft's own Windows Vista.

>>

>> Which is why an impending deadline five weeks from today is important.

>

> Don't count on it.

>

>> According to Microsoft, June 30 is the last day it will permit

>> retailers and OEMs to sell

>> the nearly seven-year-old operating system.

>

> Microsoft may be slitting their own throat. The OEMs are still

> negotiating with Microsoft and it's possible that if Microsoft refuses

> to deal, or attempts to force the shift to Vista too aggressively,

> that the OEMs will respond much the same way that Windows NT server

> customers responded when Microsoft tried to force them into switching

> to Windows 2003. Instead of being a massive migration worth

> $billions, many corporations realized that they were being herded into

> yet a another slaughterhouse, and opted to switch as many servers as

> they possibly could to Linux, or Unix, including AIX, Solaris, and

> HP_UX.

 

Except this time they did it to the consumer market too. One that will hurt

even more.

 

Businesses will buy whatever the user skills coming into work have. The

CEO/CFO/shareholders do not care which OS it is, which one can they use and

how much does it cost. On both fronts, Microsoft generated a long term

rethinking of what makes a good desktop OS. Many are switching. If

Microsoft does not stem the trend, give it 5 years and it will not be pretty

for them.

 

Mind you, I don't think there is much they can do. PCs are becoming

appliances with appliance pricing. Microsoft pricing isn't going to keep

it's "monopoly" much longer. As a good chuck of this is about the pricing.

Even if Vista ran on a EeePC, why would I pay more for the OS than the PC?

 

Vista is Microsoft's first big step to the road to hell.

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message

news:1497069.Lp6T5hALED@schestowitz.com...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

>

> ____/ Rex Ballard on Saturday 14 June 2008 08:07 : \____

>

>>> Which is why an impending deadline five weeks from today is important.

>>

>> Don't count on it.

>

> They enable upgrades to XP now, provided that you 'upgrade' your Vista

> (edition-wise). Another fine example of double-dipping to game sales

> statistics and milk innocent users, who can -- and probably will -- pay

> extra

> for XP.

 

Think, they are working on the triple/quad dip. Get Win7 out. Some users

will invariable do:

 

1) Buy a system with Basic/Premium Vista sub version

2) Upgrade to Ultimate, still does not work right

3) Buy a XP and install it, happy until SP4 quirks it

4) Win 7 comes, need to have a Win7 only app, buy Win7

 

While not every user will follow above, each of above represents a purchase

or upgrade. The above could occur in 3 short years or less.

"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> writes:

> "Clear Windows" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote in message

> news:4853e0f0$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> He (Hayden Kirk) is stupid....

>>

>> I could recommend a hummer jeep for everyone, but the extra cost makes no

>> sense for people in the city...

>> Sure it could travel any terrain but at what cost?

>>

>> Having a super duper 64 bit 4 core 8 gb system just so vista can work is

>> crazy.. Most of that power goes to the OS itself anyway..

>

> I have a super dupper 4 core 8GB system, and my 7 year old laptop running

> either Linux or XP copies faster over the network or disk to disk. Big

> a$$ed systems help a lot, but their is a lot of waste of processing

> going

^^^^^

> in. Vista is not very efficient inside. While grandma reading email may

> not notice, performance users do.

 

Seriously, are you trying to sound so stupid on purpose in order to hide

your other nym?

>

>> Vista is poorly designed and that's why its hated worldwide by billions.

>>

>> the world it turning to more efficient, greener, less power hungry,

>> faster, better designed OS's and computers

>>

>> Vista is the last of its kind... a freak of nature... a dinosaur that will

>> be exhibited in a museum as the biggest mistake MS ever made.

>

> Yep, the next generation of economical systems like EeePC have no room for

> Vista requirements nor its pricing. That is why Microsoft had to selectively

> allow resale of XP to EeePCs. There marketing and engineering blew

> the mark

^^^^^

> on what users want and had to backpeddle on a total XP retirement

> plan.

 

You're the only person in the history of usenet who managed to mix up

"there" and "their" to be wrong twice in the same post.

>

> But still, EeePC continues to do quite well on the Linux version sales, the

> cat is out of the bag. While Dell touted Linux support, it has half a$$ed

> and business only. Asus and others, different story.

>

 

You have these figures?

 

 

--

"Give it up because going on the offensive, and you are quite offensive, is

not going to cover up your trolling and nym shifting blunders no matter now

many times you re-post the same text."

-- "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy

"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message

news:g33kfp$9la$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>> But still, EeePC continues to do quite well on the Linux version sales,

>> the

>> cat is out of the bag. While Dell touted Linux support, it has half

>> a$$ed

>> and business only. Asus and others, different story.

>>

>

> You have these figures?

 

Read and weep.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143402-pg,1/article.html

 

Asus initially release the Eee PC line with Linux only. So, the market

share in this segment was 100%. Which is why MS had to get an OS fast, and

Vista, well, super fat and too big.

 

So, take a current view of a ratio of 6:4, that is a 40% market share for

Linux. A tad bit higher than MS-fanboys would like to admit. Expecting to

sell 2 million Linux ones this year alone, not including last years sales.

 

OLPC is 100% Linux. I don't believe this has changed.

 

Amazon seems to have trouble keeping the Eee PC Linux ones in stock, maybe

Asus underestimated Linux? At least in that venue Linux makes it top list

more than XP for the Eee PC, go figure.

 

Can't see the writing? Big, fat, expensive bloated low compatibility

operating systems are generally on the way out. Except for high end Apple

Macs, which too record increased sales.

 

You know Microsoft isn't going to want to have Asus publish it's real sales

numbers of Linux versus XP. Linux growth will astound many.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

Canuck57 wrote:

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:eEmRRllzIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>>> Too late: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

>>

>> I disagree a bit with that, the crucial factor was always extending

>> support. Another 6 years is a pretty good achievement in terms of getting

>> a big corporation to listen to customers. So instead of too late maybe

>> "Just in time" would be the key. Poor Vista sales are not just the result

>> of complaints, there is a small but noticeable financial crisis in the US

>> right now, we are both in the middle of it. Forecast of $5 a gallon gas, a

>> billion dollar loss of crops which will inflate food prices, layoffs all

>> around and no end in sight in Iraq means that if the Government will not

>> tighten their belts the public will do it for them. MS will be smart to

>> recognize this. People are not going to invest $1000+ in a new computer

>> unless they really can be confident it's "Disposable" income.

>

> Offset by more people working at home, choosing XP and not Vista.

>

> Know one person buying a PC, getting in under the wire but getting it with

> XP and not Vista. Theirs broke and their work does not support Vista yet.

>

>

 

 

Well I don't know how many corporations are going back to the dumb

terminal and mainframe idea but essentially that is what we have done

using W2003 Server and Wyse thing clients. There are a few XP machines

around, and I have 2 or 3 running Linux (Debian and Ubuntu). n fact

though for most of the work all could be replaced by thin clients except

for the 3 I use because they have to be able to "Run" things

independently. This seems to make it a lot easier for our IT people to

keep things in order remotely. This must represent a loss of potential

business, and also gets people used to the idea that not "Everything"

has to be Windows. It also means that any old machine capable of running

XP can be used (Even older with Debian) so there is no real incentive to

upgrade anything at all, hardware or software. If retail XP continued to

be available then most would probably prefer to replace faulty machines

with XP, but if one of these suffers a drive failure and I can't get XP

then on goes Linux. Sure you can get machines cheap these days, but most

come with "Home" versions if you buy from a big box store and that is

often no use for work, As I said above, continued support was crucial

but not that well stated, but pulling the product off the shelf with so

much hardware that the new OS cannot use out there is disconcerting.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

Charlie Tame wrote:

> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>>>> Too late:

>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

>>>

>>> I disagree a bit with that, the crucial factor was always extending

>>> support. Another 6 years is a pretty good achievement in terms of

>>> getting a big corporation to listen to customers. So instead of too late

>>> maybe "Just in time" would be the key.

>>

>> Apples & oranges. Windows Life Cycle policy (for WinXP) hasn't changed,

>> Charlie: WinXP SP3 will have Extended Support until 08 April 2014.

>> Support for WinXP SP2 ends 13 July 1010. More:

>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/donna/archive/2008/06/14/end-of-support-xp-service-pack-2.aspx

>>

> My point is that the pressure to extend was there but not clearly

> visible at first. Obviously MS did listen, but made insufficient effort

> to clarify the situation.

 

Extend what? MS hasn't extended or changed anything as far as support for

WinXP is concerned.

> Also, the removal of XP from retail stores raises another question. Many

> machines out there cannot run Vista. Many of the original CDs, OEM or

> otherwise are lost. What happens to those machines in the event of a

> hard drive failure or some virus damage? This has not been too

> reassuring for customers.

 

If you've got an OEM install of WinXP, MS wouldn't help you anyway.

 

If you've lost your Retail WinXP CD, MS *may* be able to replace it for you,

they're just not selling new ones or allowing OEMs to manufacturer new

machines with WinXP presinstalled after 30 Jun-08.

 

If you lose, e.g., your Owners Manual for your 1990 Chevy, chances are GM's

not going to replace it.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

Canuck57 wrote:

> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OanuuEkzIHA.4676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

>> Too late: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

>

> What a line of feltercarb.

>

> MS wants people to repurchase an OS ever three years or so. It helps

> revenue to make the next billions for Bill, Steve and crew. It does not

> have to be good, even if you don't need it because we are good.

>

> See, I summarized pages of hard sell and filler into three sentences.

 

Last time I checked, MS was a corporation based in a capitalist nation &

world.

On Jun 14, 9:01 pm, "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

> > XP Death Watch

>

> >http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/05/27/XP-deathwatch-T-minus-five-...

>

> > Even though it has had its own problems of late, Windows XP remains

> > the most-used version of  Windows. The newest data from Web metrics

> > vendor Net Applications, for example,

> > pegs XP as driving 73 percent of the personal computers that went

> > online last month,

>

> > five times the nearest competitor, Microsoft's own Windows Vista.

>

> > Which is why an impending deadline five weeks from today is important.

>

> > According to Microsoft, June 30 is the last day it will permit

> > retailers and OEMs to sell

> > the nearly seven-year-old operating system.

>

> > [ Make your voice heard. Sign InfoWorld's 'Save Windows XP' petition

> > today. ]

>

> >http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

>

> > You'll have questions as that date approaches,

>

> > including whether the deadline will drive up  prices (gouging,

> > anyone?)

>

> > we plan to have the answers, starting with this FAQ and continuing

> > through the end of next month.

>

> > How long until Microsoft shuts off the XP spigot? Five weeks from

> > today is the last day Microsoft

>

> > will officially allow retailers to sell the old operating system, and

> > let major computer makers

>

> You're out of date check it out again.

"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message

> news:g33kfp$9la$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>

>>> But still, EeePC continues to do quite well on the Linux version sales,

>>> the

>>> cat is out of the bag. While Dell touted Linux support, it has half

>>> a$$ed

>>> and business only. Asus and others, different story.

>>>

>>

>> You have these figures?

>

> Read and weep.

 

Why weep? I want Linux to succeed on these things. The problem is that

most people want Windows so that they can sync their phones and PDAs

properly.

 

 

>

> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143402-pg,1/article.html

>

 

,----

| "A lot of people have been waiting for the Windows version," said Jonney

| Shih, chairman of Asus, at a news conference in Taipei on Thursday.

`----

 

> Asus initially release the Eee PC line with Linux only. So, the

> market

 

Huh? This is old news.

> share in this segment was 100%. Which is why MS had to get an OS fast, and

> Vista, well, super fat and too big.

>

> So, take a current view of a ratio of 6:4, that is a 40% market share

> for

> Linux. A tad bit higher than MS-fanboys would like to admit. Expecting to

> sell 2 million Linux ones this year alone, not including last years

> sales.

 

So these figures do count? What happened to "there is no market for a

free product"?

>

> OLPC is 100% Linux. I don't believe this has changed.

 

The OLPC is a non starter. And you are wrong.

>

> Amazon seems to have trouble keeping the Eee PC Linux ones in stock, maybe

> Asus underestimated Linux? At least in that venue Linux makes it top list

> more than XP for the Eee PC, go figure.

 

No. They underestimated the EEE. Most people who buy one have NO idea it

has Linux on it.

>

> Can't see the writing? Big, fat, expensive bloated low compatibility

> operating systems are generally on the way out. Except for high end Apple

> Macs, which too record increased sales.

 

You mean the one here which is predicted to START at outselling Linux by

3:2? Are you really this dim?

>

> You know Microsoft isn't going to want to have Asus publish it's real sales

> numbers of Linux versus XP. Linux growth will astound many.

 

You're crackers.

 

--

"What's wrong, (p)Rick? Were you defending the innocence of Hans "The

Linux Butcher" Reiser, and now that he's about to give up the body

you're embarrassed at being an idiot?"

-- DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

> Charlie Tame wrote:

>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>>>>> Too late:

>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

>>>>

>>>> I disagree a bit with that, the crucial factor was always extending

>>>> support. Another 6 years is a pretty good achievement in terms of

>>>> getting a big corporation to listen to customers. So instead of too

>>>> late

>>>> maybe "Just in time" would be the key.

>>>

>>> Apples & oranges. Windows Life Cycle policy (for WinXP) hasn't changed,

>>> Charlie: WinXP SP3 will have Extended Support until 08 April 2014.

>>> Support for WinXP SP2 ends 13 July 1010. More:

>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/donna/archive/2008/06/14/end-of-support-xp-service-pack-2.aspx

>>>

>>>

>> My point is that the pressure to extend was there but not clearly

>> visible at first. Obviously MS did listen, but made insufficient effort

>> to clarify the situation.

>

> Extend what? MS hasn't extended or changed anything as far as support

> for WinXP is concerned.

 

 

Hmm, different meaning of the word extend I think. In my view when they

stop selling an OS then it is dead, however they chose to "Extend"

support for XP thus accepting the fact that for some years people would

want support. That is a good thing but was not that clear to many people

at first.

 

 

>> Also, the removal of XP from retail stores raises another question. Many

>> machines out there cannot run Vista. Many of the original CDs, OEM or

>> otherwise are lost. What happens to those machines in the event of a

>> hard drive failure or some virus damage? This has not been too

>> reassuring for customers.

>

> If you've got an OEM install of WinXP, MS wouldn't help you anyway.

 

 

Agreed, however if one cannot obtain a legit copy of XP to replace a

broken one with the the machine is dead dead. If the manufacturer cannot

supply and OEM CD you are hosed.

 

> If you've lost your Retail WinXP CD, MS *may* be able to replace it for

> you, they're just not selling new ones or allowing OEMs to manufacturer

> new machines with WinXP presinstalled after 30 Jun-08.

 

 

Well, I hope they put a mechanism in place to do this and to replace

lost OEM keys with legit retail keys (I don't mean for nothing of

course) because if they do not the customer may well say "Okay, next

time I buy an Apple".

 

> If you lose, e.g., your Owners Manual for your 1990 Chevy, chances are

> GM's not going to replace it.

 

But if I lose the manual it doesn't automatically scrap the car. IMHO it

is better to be helpful and keep customer relations than have them look

at competitor's products, and the fact is there are now some capacle

competitors.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

Charlie Tame wrote:

> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>>>>>> Too late:

>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx

>>>>>

>>>>> I disagree a bit with that, the crucial factor was always extending

>>>>> support. Another 6 years is a pretty good achievement in terms of

>>>>> getting a big corporation to listen to customers. So instead of too

>>>>> late

>>>>> maybe "Just in time" would be the key.

>>>>

>>>> Apples & oranges. Windows Life Cycle policy (for WinXP) hasn't

>>>> changed,

>>>> Charlie: WinXP SP3 will have Extended Support until 08 April 2014.

>>>> Support for WinXP SP2 ends 13 July 1010. More:

>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/donna/archive/2008/06/14/end-of-support-xp-service-pack-2.aspx

>>>>

>>>>

>>> My point is that the pressure to extend was there but not clearly

>>> visible at first. Obviously MS did listen, but made insufficient effort

>>> to clarify the situation.

>>

>> Extend what? MS hasn't extended or changed anything as far as support

>> for WinXP is concerned.

>

>

> Hmm, different meaning of the word extend I think. In my view when they

> stop selling an OS then it is dead, however they chose to "Extend"

> support for XP thus accepting the fact that for some years people would

> want support. That is a good thing but was not that clear to many people

> at first.

 

Repeat: MS did not choose to extend support for WinXP SP2 or SP3. The

LifeCycle Policy did NOT change. Extended support for SP2 was ALWAYS going

to end two (2) years after the release of SP3 extended support for SP3 was

ALWAYS going to end six (6) years after the release of the final Service

Pack for WinXP (i.e., SP3).

>>> Also, the removal of XP from retail stores raises another question. Many

>>> machines out there cannot run Vista. Many of the original CDs, OEM or

>>> otherwise are lost. What happens to those machines in the event of a

>>> hard drive failure or some virus damage? This has not been too

>>> reassuring for customers.

>>

>> If you've got an OEM install of WinXP, MS wouldn't help you anyway.

>

>

> Agreed, however if one cannot obtain a legit copy of XP to replace a

> broken one with the the machine is dead dead. If the manufacturer cannot

> supply and OEM CD you are hosed.

 

Lots of Win9x users have been and are hosed. If you don't wanna get hosed,

don't lose or break your CDs!

>> If you've lost your Retail WinXP CD, MS *may* be able to replace it for

>> you, they're just not selling new ones or allowing OEMs to manufacturer

>> new machines with WinXP presinstalled after 30 Jun-08.

>

> Well, I hope they put a mechanism in place to do this and to replace

> lost OEM keys with legit retail keys (I don't mean for nothing of

> course) because if they do not the customer may well say "Okay, next

> time I buy an Apple".

 

I wouldn't hold my breath IIWY, and I doubt MS's market dominance will ever

be truly threatened by Apple. Too many businesses are technically and

economically committed to Windows architecture in the long-term.

>> If you lose, e.g., your Owners Manual for your 1990 Chevy, chances are

>> GM's not going to replace it.

>

> But if I lose the manual it doesn't automatically scrap the car. IMHO it

> is better to be helpful and keep customer relations than have them look

> at competitor's products, and the fact is there are now some capacle

> competitors.

 

Well, how about if your '90 Chevy's engine fails: Is GM going to provide or

can they provide a replacement (at any cost)? Again, I don't think

Redmond's feeling any competitive pressure to speak of: They big money's in

Business, not Home/SOHO Users.

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:upKYldyzIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Well, I hope they put a mechanism in place to do this and to replace lost

> OEM keys with legit retail keys (I don't mean for nothing of course)

> because if they do not the customer may well say "Okay, next time I buy an

> Apple".

 

LOL. Just listened to this latest Apple/Vista ad.

 

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

Re: So help save Windows XP

 

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e8wV%23tyzIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> I wouldn't hold my breath IIWY, and I doubt MS's market dominance will

> ever be truly threatened by Apple. Too many businesses are technically

> and economically committed to Windows architecture in the long-term.

 

That sounds like deja-vue to me. Except it was 1981 or so. "Apple is not

truly threatened by PC-DOS."

 

Apple sticks to its course, they could someday find "revenge is best served

cold."