Just can't get over XP! I LOVE IT

Sometimes a bloody lot. And in those scenarios, I sure prefer XP. And even if I didn't... I think it not unreasonable to expect improvements rather than declines in standards with the advent of new operating systems.

 

Well, while you may personally access the network stuff "a bloody lot", it's likely the vast majority of users simply don't. Just because they stuck the network icons behind another window doesn't mean that standards declined. It means MS saw better organization in making these changes.

Oh, and just so you know, for those of you who access the network icons "a bloody lot", you can simply create shortcuts of them anywhere you want. You can even stick them right on the desktop. The shortcut maintains the right-click menu functions.

Also FYI, I am not sure how you normally access the network icons but I can access them in the same number of clicks in Vista as I did in XP.

 

There are a few things I miss when I go back to XP.

Start Search
Aero Preview (both the taskbar and alt-tab)
Favorite Folders Link

They aren't deal breakers though.

 

what stuff do you do, then? because networking for most part IS an improvement in vista. listing all machines in the network, f.e., is much faster than before.

and the rest, while different, is normally quickly accessed for the crazy moment i have to enter an ip manually or so

so, please explain.

 

i would miss UAC, too.. and the "it just works" of it. vista works well in the default installation, making it easy to handle for me.

 

-agrees- xD

 

Sir, you have earned my respect like no other man ever has. Except for Captain Fail.

 

I sure hope MS saw a better organization system, and didn't make those changes with malicious intent. But it sure has been less practical for me. I don't want to have to put shortcuts on my desktop to create that functionality level. To get to my IP properties in XP takes me three clicks. To connect to a network, three clicks.

Connecting to networks, disabling and re-enabling the network adapter, that sort of thing. In XP, two clicks would disable the adapter. In Vista, I find the function buried in five clicks dispersed through three windowed sub-menus. Stuff like that I can't regard as intuitive.

Oh, and just because I find one aspect of XP I think was better designed than Vista, I'm curious why I am regarded as an ignorant Vista-basher? I've used both operating systems quite a bit, and I have problems with each.

 

I can't tell if this is a compliment or an insult . . .

 

Compliment, in Silas' own idiosyncratic way

 

I have XP SP3 in a virtual machine, and quickly looking at the desktop, with the default Start menu, I don't see a way to get to the IP properties in three clicks. I *do* see a way to map a network drive in three clicks, which still works the exact same way in Vista.

You also don't HAVE to put the icons on your desktop. As I clearly stated, you could if you wanted to. You seem to demand constant, frequent, instant access to make dramatic network changes on a continual basis, and having the icon on the desktop would be a way to easily do that. You could make a folder called "NETWORK" and throw the icons in there for all anyone cares.

 

Right-click on the network icon, click 'Status' and click 'Properties'. And I would have to put icons on my desktop (if your suggestion would work) in order to facilitate the process. I don't demand constant, frequent access, but when I do demand such heavy access, I would like it to be streamlined. XP already has a way to easily do that. I merely wish to point out that I appreciate this design.

I have used Vista a lot, and it definitely has improvements over XP. May I not similarly point out where I think XP had the edge? View me as a petty, malcontent, griping imbecile if you like, but in the words of Agrippa:

"Pardon what I have spoke;
For 'tis a studied, not a present thought,
By duty ruminated."

 

It was directed at me and it was a compliment. Silas and I have had many on threads and PM conversations over the past months, all friendly.

Gary

 

It wasn't an insult, it was a compliment. He's everything I want to be. Plus I know him in real life, so.

 

Except OLD. Trust me, bud, your don't wanna be old.

Gary

 

I see how you strategically didn't mention anything about that belly of yours!

 

Just an ominous and inevitable part of OLD. One more reason why you don't want to be in that state.

Gary

 

So you don't want to put the network icon on the desktop in Vista, yet you will change the properties of the network icon in XP so it shows in the taskbar.. sitting on the desktop.

OK SOUNDS GOOD.

 

at the end of the day xp, vista and now windows 7 are evolutions of windows 2000 , in the end youll need to use 7 or vista as very soon xp aint gonna be supported no new drivers etc. staying with xp in a year or 2 will be like using 98 today.......... rubbish hardware support, bugs all over and sotware that wont work anymore..........

but each to there own, xp is an awesome os and is solid as a rock now, but in 6-8 months when software and drivers evolve to become vista/windows 7 only i wouldnt be counting on your rock solid os so much......

 

dhcp? never care about them anymore?

nice, my notebook has hw buttons for this. all i see around, too.. at least for wlan. for lan, plug in/plug out the cable. dhcp does the rest.

because it was just designed DIFFERENTLY. i actually get to the ip with 3 clicks (from head, maybeeee 4) in the default config of vista. it IS quite different and needs some get-used-to, that's true. but the amount of clicks is actually really the same. haven't believed it myself, first.

 

Rubbish! I'm not a rabid XP-fanboy, nor a rabid _Vista-hater; however, (a) XP will get security support longer than _Vista (by two years), and (b) if I've got all the drivers I need for my current hardware, none of that will change in 6 months, a year, or even 5 years. Thus, if XP runs fine on the hardware I have now, it will continue to do so until, at the very least, April of 2014, which is when MS will drop extended support for XP.

 

xp gets longer support than vista? where did you took that sort of pill? hehehe.

really.. you can't even believe that. vista will be in use much longer (by companies) than xp. the ones that switched recently to vista (and i know some big ones) will at least stay on it for 5 years, _then_ the next migration may start. and end 2 years later => 16. and support from microsoft will surpass even that.

this is just a stupid statement. they WILL first phase out support for the older os. and supporting vista is much more simple, as win7 and vista have the same codebase. xp needs special care currently, and they'd love to get rid of that as soon as possible internally.

 

just so you know. a default installation of xp does NOT have a desktkop icon. and reaching the desktop needs at least one click except if you do NOTHING with your system anyways..

I find my ip in 4 clicks, one of it a right click. unimportant if i see the desktop or not. exlain me, how you reach that in a default installed windows xp. to make it more hard, say, with word open and maximised. so you can't just, without click, reach the desktop.

 

The thing is, I don't see any businesses switching to Vista for any good reason. I can see Windows 7 perhaps. Businesses want bare bones hardware requirements to minimize costs. Vista doesn't support that. Windows 7 seems to correct that.

 

Try looking up Microsoft's life-cycle support policies some time - it's right there on the website. All versions of XP (Home, MCE, Pro) qualify for extended support, which runs through April of 2014. By contrast, all editions of _Vista other than the business edition, cease getting any support whatsoever as of April of 2012.

Furthermore, since the standard MS lifecycle policy is to provide support for a product for only 24 months past the date on which the product's replacement was first offered to the public, _Vista SP1 and _Vista SP2 - both of which are to be replaced by Windows7 - will not get any support past the later of April 2012, or 24 months after the date on which Windows7 is released. Since Windows7 is on-track to be released no later than the end of this year, that tells me that all versions of _Vista RTM/SP1/SP2, other than the business edition, will become malware honeypots no later than April of 2012, while all versions of XP will continue to be malware-safe until April of 2014.

Go look it up on Microsoft's website - I'm not a messengerboy and I'm tired of retrieving it for others' who have just as much access to the internet as I.

 

And we all know just because Microsoft says something now means they will not be changing it later.... -_-

 

look mate im not rubbishing your opinion so dont rubbish mine, im merely making a statement of how i perceive the situation to be, why come on here and make a thread bashing vista/7 then complain that people start bashing xp, and i quote

"but each to there own, xp is an awesome os and is solid as a rock now, but in 6-8 months when software and drivers evolve to become vista/windows 7 only i wouldnt be counting on your rock solid os so much......"

so im neither bashing xp nor biggin up vista im merely stating that xp will end its life just like all os's. You want the truth, you cant handle the truth.......................... grow up and stop complaining, so you love xp get over yourself........

 

the trick is, so far they had no need to change the vista lifecicle and it's still ath the one it was when it got released. xp HAD to be delayed several times. the same will happen with vista. microsoft has to learn that businesses sometimes use an os for 10years and more, and want support. so they will adapt the vista lifetime.

it's just plain logic.

 

I believe he was just pointing out the fact that XP has longer support then Vista.
While you base your statements by your own opinions. (Which I don't find very rock solid.)
If you wish to pull out facts to support your argument I'm all ears. Until then its just your personal opinion.
In the long run though, yes it is common sense XP will die, everything dies.

 

So true Shyster.

Even after 2014 XP may be doing all you expect of it.

For me, the end of XP will be when my general purpose home computer dies. I always use the latest OS when I build a new system.

I've got friends still using Windows 98 on some of their machines. They are still getting exactly what they want and need so for them it's pointless to "upgrade".

They also have rigs that use Vista 64 bit.

I't kind of like saying my 72 Blazer is obsolete because their are newer models out.

Well I also have an 08 Pick-up and they both perform well within my expectations for the tasks I use them for. I wouldn't take the Blazer across country with the family, but it's a blast around town and on the trails.

 

No, that doesn't follow. First off, XP Pro (i.e., the business version) would have had extended support until 2014 in any event, as per Microsoft's standard lifecycle policy. What they did in 2006 was to shift the consumer versions (XP Home and MCE) onto the XP Pro lifecycle support basis; they made no changes to the XP Pro lifecycle.

The reason they did that is because, due to the delays in getting _Vista released, they were faced with the situation (largely of their own making) in which all support for XP Home and XP MCE ran out - including security support - at or before the time that _Vista was released to the public.

That would have been a terrible situation because, if the usual lifecycle was followed, millions of users of XP Home/MCE would have been left with no security support and no replacement MS operating system to shift to (since either _Vista would not have been immediately available, or because _Vista would not have run on users' then-existing hardware, forcing users to immediately buy a new computer with a new preinstalled OS long before they were prepared to do so - heck, even some of the new hardware couldn't properly run _Vista - you do remember the "Vista Capable" debacle, don't you?).

It was precisely that untenable situation - millions of consumer users being left utterly naked security-wise - that caused Microsoft to extend "extended support" to the Home and MCE versions of XP.

Further, it cannot have had anything to do with the business users of XP, because they were almost all on XP Pro (at least the ones big enough to have some weight to throw around with Microsoft), which wasn't going to be losing security support for at least 8 more years as of the initial release of _Vista.

Finally, that untenable situation does not exist this time around. First off, both XP and _Vista will continue to have security support that substantially overlaps with the release of Windows7 by several years (2012 for _Vista, 2014 for XP), thus giving all consumer users plenty of time to either upgrade their OS by purchasing a retail copy of Win7, or to upgrade their computers to a new one with Win7 preinstalled.

Thus, since no-one will be left to the tender mercies of hackers at or before the release of Win7, and because no-one will be forced to make a forced frogmarch to the nearest electronics store to buy a new system with Win7 preinstalled in order to avoid going naked security-wise, there is absolutely no reason for Microsoft to extend the lifecycle of _Vista by even a Microsecond.

The slowness of large enterprise customers in adopting Win7 will also not provide any basis for Microsoft to extend the lifecycle of _Vista because (a) XP Pro has security support until 2014, and (b) _Vista Enterprise version has security support until 2017 - about 8 years after the planned initial release of Win7 (and, therefore, completely in line with the amount of support that was left for XP Pro at the time _Vista was initially released - since Microsoft felt no need to extend the lifecycle of XP Pro back then, given that enterprise users had eight years in which to change, it stands to reason that Microsoft will similarly have no need to extend the lifecycle of _Vista Enterprise this time around, given that users will also have eight years in which to change).

The bottom line is, none of the reasons or pressures that caused Microsoft to extend the lifecycle of the consumer versions of XP back in 2006 exist now, and thus Microsoft will have absolutely no reason or basis on which to extend the security support for the consumer versions of _Vista now.

QED

 

No, what we know is that Microsoft will not change something - even something that's a kludged workaround (e.g., 16-bit legacy support) - unless Microsoft has a really, really good reason to do so. Give me a good reason, and I will grant the likelihood of Microsoft extending the lifecycle of the consumer versions of _Vista; otherwise, there is absolutely no basis for hoping or guessing that Microsoft will do with _Vista what it did with XP back in 2006.

 

maybe you dont find what i say rock solid, and to be honest yes it is just my opinion and im not forcing it on anybody everyone will use whatever os suits them but is there any need for the op to rubbish everyones opinion because it isnt his own?? i enjoy using xp, vista and 7 and they all have their own plus point and negatives, and as you say eventually xp will die........

i know there are still people out there using 98 and good for them if they can keep it going they deserve a medal lol. All im saying is you cant stop the inevitable.....

 

Geeeeze. Where is that energizer bunny logo when you need it.

Dead horse beaten.

Gary

 

Can't get over Vista! 7 is disgusting. It's just a Vista 2, that has new dumb features added and performs a bit better

 

Can you show me a current Microsoft website where I can read about XP having longer security support than Vista?

 

Yes, I can, in fact I'll even cut and paste the relevant tables from Microsoft's website in this post to save you the bother of even having to follow my links to view the webpages themselves, but only after I say this:

Can't anyone be bothered to use the available search tools these days? Here's what I get when I type (without quotation marks) "Microsoft Vista Support Lifecycle Policy" into the google search form: about 120,000 hits.

Even better, here's what I get when I type (without quotation marks) "product lifecycle policy" into the search form on Microsoft's initial landing page (i.e., http://www.microsoft.com - up at the top center of the page): about 63,000 hits, with the homerun hits being at the top of the first page of results!

I don't know about anyone else, but it's pretty bad when an over-the-hill, 40 y.o. geriatric like myself, using a 6 y.o. VAIO with a 1.3GHz centrino and 768MB of PC-2700 RAM (which as just recently been charitably referred to as a "POS computer" elsewhere, can google rings around the rest of y'all.

Now, onto the spoonfed data:

1. ) The product lifecycle for_Vista
2. ) The product lifecycle for XP (scroll down to the 11 table rows near the very bottom of the table that start with "Windows XP Home Edition")

Now, just so that no-one risks breaking a fingernail clicking on either of those links, here are the relevant table rows from each webpage (relevant items bolded):

Vista
Products Released	General Availability Date	Mainstream Support Retired	Extended Support Retired	Service Pack Retired	Notes
Windows Vista Business	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	4/11/2017	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Business 64-bit Edition	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	4/11/2017	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Business N	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	4/11/2017	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Business N 64-bit Edition	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	4/11/2017	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Enterprise	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	4/11/2017	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit Edition	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	4/11/2017	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Home Basic	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit Edition	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Home Basic N	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Home Basic N 64-bit Edition	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Home Premium	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit Edition	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Service Pack 1	2/4/2008	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	7/12/2011	.
Windows Vista Service Pack 2	4/29/2009	Review Note	Review Note	.	Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport .
Windows Vista Ultimate	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Edition	1/25/2007	4/10/2012	Not Applicable	4/13/2010	.

XP
Products Released	General Availability Date	Mainstream Support Retired	Extended Support Retired	Service Pack Retired	Notes
Windows XP Home Edition	12/31/2001	4/14/2009	4/8/2014	8/30/2005	.
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2002	10/28/2002	4/14/2009	4/8/2014	8/30/2005	.
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004	10/27/2003	4/14/2009	4/8/2014	10/10/2006	.
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005	12/30/2004	4/14/2009	4/8/2014	.	.
Windows XP Professional	12/31/2001	4/14/2009	4/8/2014	8/30/2005	.
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition	4/24/2005	4/14/2009	4/8/2014	4/14/2009	.
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2	Not Available	Review Note	Review Note	.	Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport .
Windows XP Service Pack 1	8/30/2002	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	10/10/2006	.
Windows XP Service Pack 1a	2/3/2003	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	10/10/2006	.
Windows XP Service Pack 2	9/17/2004	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	7/13/2010	.
Windows XP Service Pack 3	4/21/2008	Review Note	Review Note	.	Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport.

Is that good enough for you?

To conclude, remember GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND!

 

But in those very tables you posted, Vista has a considerably longer extended support life. In fact, you clearly bolded dates for Vista going out to 2017. Service Pack 2, which comes out late this month, doesn't even *have* an extended support end listed in your table.

XP SP2 on the other hand, appears to be reaching the end of service pack life.. on 7/13/2010, just over a year from now. SP3 seems to be going on for a while, but based on the "24 months after service pack release" thing, which you included in your table, Vista's 4/29/09 service pack will still be supported after XP SP3's 4/21/08 24 months are over.

 

Yep, I guess XP will eventually faze out. Hmm... I just have to make sure there's always a way to play my DOS games. The really important thing, you know.

Yep, but I happen to use that stuff a lot for our network at work.

And I have used Vista for a while... I'm open to getting used to it. It just still doesn't seem quite so streamlined. In fact, that applies to all of Vista, but actually to XP in some ways too. Those sidebar menus in Windows Explorer always foul me up.

Umm... I don't use a desktop icon, and I don't know where that came from. I don't need to reach the desktop, as I have a network icon in the taskbar. Which, to respond to something S.SubZero said, is much more efficient than an icon on the desktop, and much more subtle too. And sure, I have to change that setting from the default, but since when do I keep the default XP settings, or any bloody default settings for that matter!?

 

Yeah...

You should double check yourself before slamming folks on the forum.

YOUR information clearly shows Vista getting support 3 years longer than XP.

 

notice no reply, i thionk maybe he has finally realised he wrong on this matter..............

 

I think he was referring to the consumer version of Windows Vista, which do not seem to be getting extended support (correct me if I'm wrong), while the consumer editions of XP do.

It wouldn't make sense if Microsoft supported XP Pro longer than it did Vista Business.

 

yeah its says that, but microsoft are known for changing there minds, i imagine the length of support for consumer editions of vista will depend on how well received windows 7 is, iirc xp had its lifetime extended because vista was shunned by the majority of people and businesses but its starting to be adopted now by a lot of businesses, i would imagine this will make the migration to windows 7 a lot easier as there will be no clear and easy upgrade from xp to windows 7, however going from vista to windows 7 will be a lot easier as they are essentially the same os underneath...... well have to wait and see what happens

 

"Not applicable" doesn't mean "there isn't any." It means there's no value for the field. Maybe there's no value because it's not yet known.

 

Perhaps, but for now, we're both just guessing. :]

Although, Microsoft consumer OS's in the past have had shorter support periods than do the business version, so I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they don't decide to extend it. But you're right; I'm sure if the demand is there, Microsoft will extend the support for the consumer editions of Vista.

 

No. No. No. No.

Did I not clearly state in my earlier posts that I was referring to the consumer versions of the two OSes? Yes, I did.

Did I not clearly state that what Microsoft had done was to put the consumer versions of XP on the same support track enjoyed by XP-Pro? Yes, I did.

Now, looking at the charts in question, when are the consumer versions of _Vista retired? Why, in April of 2012.

When are the consumer versions of XP retired? Why, the same time that XP Pro is retired, in April of 2014.

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

Now, to answer another little poster who thinks s/he can play games with "not applicable" - the reason the phrase "Not Applicable" shows up under the column "Extended Support Retired" for the consumer versions of _Vista is that under the general rules of Microsoft's lifecycle support policy, consumer versions of its OSes do not get any extended support, period. Since they don't get extended support at all, it would be nonsensical to give a date for the retirement of such nonexistent extended support; thus, that column is not applicable to the consumer versions of _Vista, and hence the shorthand use of the phrase "Not Applicable." Capische?

 

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2007/03/7287.ars

http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/policy/online_disclaimer.mspx

On a technicality, Vista Business is certainly available to consumers.

 

@Shyster: I will have Windows Vista Business once my new notebook arrives. So, technically, as SubZero put it, I will have longer support than any of your versions of XP. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

I don't need the extra features of Ultimate, but Business does have certain benefits I enjoy.

 

That's how I feel.

I NEVER used Media Center in XP when I had it, so I suspect the same would be said with Vista, and eventually Windows 7, though I'm sure Media Center is much better in Vista and Windows 7 than it was in XP (it sucked!).