XP or Vista user — take the poll!

[zridling]

If you're willing to hold out till 2010, Windows 7 will be here, but according to Microsoft's Pay-As-You-Go FlexGo plan, future versions will include Symantec-like subscription models, i.e., buy as much of the OS as you use or can afford, and expand the OS as needed.



On the other hand, shouldn't Windows 7 be Windows 11? I presume Microsoft is not counting 1, 2, 3, and ME.
               01. Windows 1.0
               02. Windows 2.0/2.1
               03. Windows 3.0/3.1
               04. Windows 95
               05. Windows 98
               06. Windows ME
               07. Windows NT
               08. Windows 2000
               09. Windows XP
               10. Windows Vista
               11. Windows 7

[f0dder]

Not too familiar with the 3.x versions (I was only a user back then, and never used win3.x too much, since most of what I used was DOS based back then).

Win9x = 95, 98, Me - no big architectural changes.
WinNT = 3.x, 4.x, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), Vista - some arch changes for major versions.


And well, I'm happily sticking with XP for as long as possible, Vista doesn't really bring anything great and wonderful for me. There's a couple of kernel changes that are nice, but with the rest of the system being so bloated, no thanks ma'am. Hopefully Microsoft won't be successful in forcing too many companies to make interesting stuff Vista-only, although they are trying (like DirectX and hybrid harddrive support being Vista-only, even though there's no good reason for this.)

[steeladept]

The way Microsoft is going, I will only use Windows if I get it for free.  I find their licenses far too restrictive for the price I pay given what I use it for.  I am finding Linux will do what I want for a fraction of the price, with a better quality of user base (in general), and with little or no impact on other aspects of my computing.  The only real hit will be in gaming, but with my daughters, I rarely get time to do that anymore anyway.  As things move more to a SaaS architecture, the OS will become less relevant anyway.  I generally like windows, but the brutality Microsoft shows towards its customers is VERY grating on me.  With the very real alternatives to Windows now available, I may find it worth voting with my money for another OS.  Hmm...I still really like what I am seeing from Linux Mint distributions...

[nudone]

xp here, until i have to use vista - which i don't think will happen. 2010 sounds like a better time to change from xp. maybe linux will run what i want by then - or something just as good. whatever, i would assume there'll be some funky ways of using virtual operating systems by then so things might be a bit blurry.

[app103]

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1 (aka Windows/286 and Windows/386)
Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 3.11 for Workgroups (WfW)
---
Windows 95 (Windows 4.0)
Windows 98 (Windows 4.1), Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows Millennium Edition (Windows 4.9)
---
Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0)
Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1)
Windows Server 2003, Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 (Windows NT 5.2)
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (Windows NT 5.2)
Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (Windows NT 5.1+)
Windows Vista (Windows NT 6.0)

(from wikipedia)



so...next one being 7 sounds about right.

Now about that Pay-as-you-go plan...

People thought I was crazy when I suggested this was going to be the future of Windows when I mentioned it back in 2002.

At that time I had thought it would be that maybe you'd get a basic OS for free (like you can get Linux for free), with them passing out disks in much the same way AOL did (flooding the market with their 'free' product). They would probably only release a new version of the CD about once every 10 years, but continue to have newer versions of Windows as a series of 'patches' to be applied to the one that is available on disk, and them keeping the disk always behind the current version when they release a new CD.

And that to access Windows Update to get these 'patches' would be on a yearly or monthly subscription, which all patches and upgrades to bring you up to the current Windows version would be offered, once you paid. Without the fee being paid, it is possible that they would cause your OS to 'expire' and they would have some way of shutting it down till you called and gave credit card info over the phone. (much in the same way you pay for internet access and it gets shut off if you don't pay your bill)

If they offered it this way, they would have much less problems with piracy on their hands, and less of a problem with people running older more insecure versions, because they could force newer versions on people... but at the same time, there would be no way people of lower incomes would be able to afford to run it.

It is also possible that on an older machine that couldn't handle an upgrade, that the OS would shut down permanently, forcing you to buy a new computer if you wanted to continue using Windows.

As I can see now, they aren't going this far...yet. (at least not with their next version of Windows)

[zridling]

Thanks app, that's a better explanation of the versions, since for some companies, version names overshadow numbers, particularly with OSes. Apple and Ubuntu go with animal names, for instance, while Windows often uses place names during development.

[alxwz]

I had to choose Win 98 from the poll, although this only sits alongside Win 2k and Xubuntu on my only working Windows-compatible machine (Thinkpad 600E).

My other computers run OS X 10.2-10.4.

As for Non-Macs, I'll probably use Win 2k (last non-"product activation" NT-based Windows, and, yes, I bought it) until it finally really breaks.
Then I'll have another look into Linux and hopefully it'll have some mainstream credibility and better apps then.

[Grorgy]

I'll be sticking with xp (I have one pro, which i dont have the disk for, i bought home and the shop installed pro and one home which is on my laptop, but since they didnt provide a windows disk i have used the one i got with the other computer)  Sooo, if i need to reinstall windows on my desk (running pro now) then i will probably get vista, but i really dont want to spend the money and usually only update when i get a new compuuter.

[f0dder]

If you have a valid (and legit) XP Pro license, you might be able to get just the install disc pretty cheaply (and we're talking legit!)...

[jgpaiva]

whatever, i would assume there'll be some funky ways of using virtual operating systems by then so things might be a bit blurry.

-nudone (July 23, 2007, 02:35 PM)

I have the same opinion.
I think that if more virtualization apps and cross-platform stuff come up, i'll be keeping XP for a long time, running linux on a VM... Or the other way around. Or something in between

[mouser]

I'm still mainly using xp, though i have vista installed on a backup pc.
I'll stick with xp for a while but i expect i'll be moving to vista in a year or so.

[Lashiec]

Ssshhh! App, don't give Microsoft ideas!

XP here as well. I just moved from 98 SE a month ago or so, and I'm still exploring XP. I don't have any desire to put Vista yet, and I don't know if I hold on 'til Windows 7, that depends on RAM cost in the future.

[laughinglizard]

I've been using Vista for a while. Oddly enough, I like it. 

From the Windows versions I've used (3.1 through the 9x core to XP to Vista) I think Vista is the most well executed.

If I used my computer for work or production I don't think I would switch.

[laughinglizard]

whatever, i would assume there'll be some funky ways of using virtual operating systems by then so things might be a bit blurry.

Lots of dual booting XP/Vista going on, and since Microsoft released Virtual PC for free a lot of people are running XP inside Vista using Virtual PC.
You need a legit copy of XP to install it.

[Josh]

I am running vista, and I love it. I hear people bad mouthing it left and right, but the only problems I SEE are from application developers not updating their programs to store settings the proper way. With vista, permissions and settings are stored in the users appdata folder (%APPDATA%) as opposed to program files. Microsoft finally realized that programs, after install, should not require any further access to that folder besides to launch the program. If a program requires global settings, that is what the DEFAULT user folder is for.

Vista is fast, smooth and I havent had many problems.

[zridling]

David Berlind has an interesting take on whether Windows 7 will even be relevant by 2010.
_______________________
Snip:
One reason that my productivity [in Vista] hasn’t improved much is that I find myself spending more and more time in my browser (accessing Web applications). Wordpress (as one example) is our platform of choice for publishing blogs and it’s all done in a browser. I hardly ever do any word processing any more and when I do, I do it with Google Docs because of how (1) I can access that document from anywhere, even without my computer and (2) how easy it is to share those documents with others. Banking? Done in my browser. Attendee tracking for Mashup Camp? Done in my browser. E-Mail? Not inlcuding corporate e-mail (for which a browser-based client — Outlook Web Access — exists), so much of what I do, I do it in a browser.... Unfortunately for Microsoft, it’s getting much tougher to win on the basis of browser differentiation. Especially when your browser only runs on one operating system.

My own take is if you believe Berlind that the OS will be web-centric, then this cedes an enormous advantage to GNU/Linux.

[app103]

The whole idea of web-centric applications can give new life to older Windows PC's providing they get a newer browser and not run old, insecure, outdated, incapable versions of IE.

This is great news for snail owners, providing their older systems can handle the resource demands of the web apps.

[zridling]

And ComputerWorld has a great article on How to make Windows XP last for the next seven years:

Windows Vista may be shiny and brand new, but as plenty of PC users will tell you, sometimes newer isn't better.... We'll give you tips, tweaks and tricks so that you'll be able to keep XP running smoothly, at top performance, for smooth operation and long life.... we'll also show you how to get many of Vista's goodies, such as greatly improved security, transparent windows, Windows Flip 3D and the Network Map, all without having to spend the money to upgrade or get new hardware.

• How long will Microsoft support XP?
  
• Get Vista's security improvements in XP
  
• Get Vista's eye candy in XP
  
• Get other Vista goodies
  
• Tweak XP settings for faster performance
  
• Perform weekly maintenance for smooth operation

[f0dder]

Vista is fast, smooth and I havent had many problems.

-Josh

That just isn't my experience - having tested it (on real hardware, not virtualized) on both my pretty beefy main machine (AMD64x2 4400+, 2 gigs of ram, Raptor main drive, 320gig raid stripe for the Vista install) as well as some Lenovo laptops (core2duo T5600, 1gig ram, Intel 945 graphics). Vista boots slower, and it feels no faster or smoother, applications start a bit slower, framerates in games are a bit slower (perhaps because of immature drivers, perhaps other reasons), things like the control panel are extremely laggy (generic problem with the new Windows Presentation Foundation, or just bad code in those particular things?), etc.

And frankly I don't see anything valuable added in Vista at the user level, and the "we want to be like Mac OS X" thing doesn't really do it for me (and in fact I think the new explorer sucks), I think ~8gigs for just the Windows folder is way over the top (it's quite a sizable chunk of a 74-gig raptor drive), etc etc etc.

[zridling]

Good points, and as Berlind noted, your productivity doesn't increase under Vista, nor does your "computing experience" get measurably better. Although I've come to like Vista more than XP, it's my last Microsoft OS whether I use it for three years or ten years.

[Lashiec]

Of course, and next year I'll be playing Crysis in Opera

I don't know where all this fuss and desire to push web apps comes from. How do you run a browser without an OS? Are they going to transform the OS into a full-blown browser? I've been months trying to imagine a world with only web apps, and I really can't make up one. The future, I say, will be composed of desktop and web apps. Of course, big companies want to go web all the way, for they can charge you dearly for using their apps, and you can't escape its influence. But, what about all the small developers? How do they fund their developments? What about DonationCoder, for example? How do you run mouser's apps on a browser? AutoHotkey? Where do you store your information, in your hard disk, or in the megacorporation servers? I can also sense the FSF feelings conflicting over this, you can't make a web app OSS (unless you get all the code and you modify it yourself in your IDE, I mean, an IDE over a browser)

I'm not even taking into account the massive amount of memory needed to run some of the apps you usually run on your desktop, not all the security considerations. I think that all those articles are written by narrow-minded people (it's my harsh side again!) that really thinks everyone is using his/her computer to write some documents here and blog there, so they don't take in consideration other people needs. The worse part is that the software world wants to move in that direction, and so do some users.

I said it before, I really appreciate web apps. But a synergy between the two models will be better for everyone. After all, considering the amount of work done in different locations by a single person, it's better for this one person to do all this work in a web-running app, instead of carrying that work between different machines. Not to mention the amount of work needed for a web-based world to become true doesn't compensate for a minimum increase in productivity. A paradigm shift won't bring anything really valuable. After all, computers didn't make the world better, instead they made us their slaves!

Bah, I'm sounding like and old jerk instead of a young guy!

PD: I know! All of this is a Apple conspiracy to push the iPhone!

[justice]

I been working with vista since march. I loved it, hated it, tuned it, loved it, hated it, and now i'm ready to go back to XP again as soon as my project at work is finished. Gradually I've turned off a lot of improvements in Vista to make it run faster: first defender, then search indexing, then UAC,then aero, then themes etc but really I might just as well go back to XP then. I loved the explorer improvements, breadcrumbs, version restore (why they don't put it in every vista version god knows it would be fantastic for home users), backup center, better file renaming, networking settings, individual volume per application, improved security etc, but the software support to take advantage of it all is not there yet.

Vista is not a bad OS, but the rest of the world needs more time to adjust.

Application authors will probably need another year to optimize applications for vista, and until Windows XP support becomes a problem, just stick with what you have, it works reliably even though XP has its problems, but when things stop working you know what you're missing.

It's always been stable though, even though the programs that run on top of it have had issues.

Reading the msdn interviews about the under the hood improvements (superfetch, less hd activity) I was very hopeful hope it just doesn't deliver performance wise.

[Carol Haynes]

Webapps seem to be the way things are going ... it's not too strange when you think of it. MS can't convince people (other than large companies) to move to a subscription based license of software and neither can other companies. It isn't strange then when webapps start to appear which use a subscription model (or will in the future). Webapps are the future cash cow.

What no one seems to have thought about is that when webapps become the de-facto office standard who will need fast hardware? Software sppeds will depend on the server rather than the client computer so only a basic system will be required - and will effectively run forever on the cheapest OS available. MS will still tie people into buying new versions of windows (the only way to install .Net v510 and WebApps 379.2) but anyone with a brain will long since have shifted to a new OS that just runs a browser and will have left MS's inferior webapp system.

I seriously think this may be the demise of MS if they are not careful - their web presence has never been a happy experience for users whereas other web providers (even small ones) produce rather better web based apps and websites.

Trouble is by the time this all shakes out Linux will have been fragmented so far and be so tied up with proprietary stuff as companies try to customise it in non-standard ways (within the GPL system) that Linux will probably die before it ever gets into wide circulation - or remain a geek-haven.

As to this topic - I can't see me moving on from Windows XP until I absolutely have to. Vista adds nothing that will benefit me (and great deal that will do the opposite) and the way things are going Windows 7 will be even worse in the pros/cons balance. Anyway 2010 will probably be too soon.

I am going to have to start thinking about Linux as an alternative in the medium term.

Who knows maybe Jobs & Co. will see the light and make MacOS available to PC users - then I might be tempted, but I don't want to get locking into Apple hardware (or prices).

[Curt]

So wise words you all have written! 

Of course Vista will grow BIG as time goes bye, and I am looking forward to install it in 1, 2 or 3 years from now, but not at the moment. I imagine justice may be right when he said that the world needs more time to adjust to Vista (and vice versa!). The programs Vista users have for now may merely be programs developed for XP and modified for Vista; not taking advantage of what Vista can do.

Meanwhile 'someone' out there expects XP to somehow stay for long periode of time:

React Operating System

ReactOS® is an advanced free open source operating system providing a ground-up implementation of a Microsoft Windows® XP compatible operating system. ReactOS aims to achieve complete binary compatibility with both applications and device drivers meant for NT and XP operating systems, by using a similar architecture and providing a complete and equivalent public interface.

ReactOS is the most complete working model of a Windows® like operating system available. Consequently, working programmers will learn a great deal by studying ReactOS source code and even participating in ReactOS development.

ReactOS has and will continue to incorporating features from newer versions and sometimes even define the state of the art in operating system technology.

In short, ReactOS is aiming to run your applications and use your hardware, a free operating system for everyone!

Please bear in mind that ReactOS 0.3.3-RC is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature complete and is not recommended for everyday use.

Release time:

The long awaited 0.3.3 release is branched; the usual preparations for releases are under way. You should already know we skipped a version number and that this release is primarily bug fixes from the massive kernel rewrites that have been taking place. Stability being the primary motivation of this release, I can safely say this is a big improvement from the 0.3.1 release.

The outlook looks bright on future releases, ever closer to the 0.4 goal of beta status. The stated goal of 2 month releases is upheld (.3.2 was skipped ~2 months after 0.3.1 was released). It should be repeated that 2 month releases are not set in stone; releases are done at the convenience of the developers and at such a time when the code base is deemed worthy of a version bump.

The actual full release will occur soon, currently waiting on further testing, change logs, minor bug fixes, and other stuff.  The Release candidate can be downloaded here. Changelog is still a work in progress, but can be viewed here.

Alpha, not Beta, but RC, though: http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

[steeladept]

I agree whole-heartedly that web applications are the wave of the future, and I rue that day every moment I see it come closer.  While it does provide convenient access to all data, it has a couple serious drawbacks for the end user.  These drawbacks are the same advantages companies see, so consider these carefully.

1)  Web apps immediately lend themselves to a subscription based model.  They provide a steady income stream to providers and provide up to date applications to the user without intervention - but what happens when you are short of cash that month?  Do you forgo eating, or your data that you make your living off of (see next)?
2)  Since the company controls the application, they control who uses it, when, and to some extent how.
3)  Data security - Do you trust all those companies with your data?  Do they make it available to you when you want it / need it regardless of your current user status?  Do they turn over private data to unauthorized persons or authorities?  I certainly don't advocate ANY criminal activity, but in the United States where you (supposedly) have the right to privacy unless a full court order and proper warrant is attained, will you still have that privacy when a third company has access to that same privacy?  What recourse do you have?  What responsibilities would the company holding the information have?  Would corporate moral obligations change this?  It didn't for Google in China...

Dang, I had more, but I forgot them now.  It doesn't really matter however, because these are enough to consider.  I do have to disagree about this being the end of Microsoft though.  I foresee Microsoft creating a "bare metal" OS that basically is a web browser and/or a VM.  You then load your choices into that browser/VM as appropriate.  Think this might be far off?  VMWare already has this technology and has been promoting it for at least a year.  They created a VM-OS that runs off the hardware (no host needed).  Then you load your VM machines into it.  It is currently only in their Enterprise level offerings (ESM and GSM), but the technology is there.  If Microsoft created an OS that connected automatically and ran the browser as the desktop, that is all they would need.  Since they can do that already (just need to take out all the excess fluff), they could repackage it that way and give it to hardware manufacturers for a song.  Microsoft would be happy to maintain dominance, Hardware manufacturers would maintain margins, and consumers would be happy with lower costs.  The only piece of the puzzle left is GOOD web applications that make people willing to give up their OS to load applications locally.