Long LIVE XP!!!

I like XP than vista

I'm a Mac and I'm a PC...

The primary reason system OEMs push for the "downgrade" option is a simple one, and it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with customers asking for XP. WinXP, shipped in 2001, is geared for far lower resource usage--and will run fine under 1 gig of ram. Just take a look at all of the OEM "downgrade" offers, and you'll see that they usually if not always involve systems wherein the el-cheapo base price is set up for only 1 gig of ram. If you want to go as cheaply as possible then you'll want to go with 1 gig of ram and XP as Vista really needs 2 gigs of ram to run as briskly as XP runs in 1. Additionally, as the "downgrade option" saves you not one penny over Vista, the only reason to use it is to save money on the extra ram. While saving a few dollars isn't maybe that important to consumers, it's very important to OEMs who desire to move millions of machines.

And there you have the facts behind the OEM downgrade option. It really only makes sense to OEMs, I'm afraid.

I find Vista to run so much more smoother than XP. A bad image goes a long way. Just like in that commercial, I'm sure there are thousands of people who would never upgrade to Vista simply because to them it has become an absolute fact that Vista is absolute crap. In other words, replace Vista with the perfect OS but keep the negative rumors that it gets, and I'm sure you will have dummies looking to downgrade back to XP when looking to buy a new computer. The bad image probably started with the fact that Vista requirements were consider so high. People looked at that as bloat, rather then your OS using available resources to run smoother.

Still more red meat for the Vista = Me wolves.

I wonder if this is mainly about Netbooks, though. Maybe some Intel exec sidled up to some M$ exec and said "This first-gen Atom platform we're still polishing -- it likes XP. I mean it really likes XP. Ya know what I mean? And we're still the kind of friends who scratch each other's backs. So the drinks will be on us next time if you'll just quietly....."

I'm getting a new laptop assigned to me which has XP installed, no doubt through this scheme. I'm quite disappointed, I wanted Vista (which I'm very happy with on my own desktop).

Win98 was widely adopted
WinXP was widely adopted
WIn7 I bet will be widely adopted

Win95, Win2000, and Vista were the trailblazers, and the versions that followed after all were the same basically as the previous version but with better polish. That is how I see it anyway.

I think MS realizes what they need to do. Perception of Vista is not good from what I've seen among most non-technical (and many technical) people I know.

Here's the thing thats really going on. For me personally?? If you are going to run vista, I would recommend running 64 bit version of vista and forget about the 32 bit of vista. Now if you are going to run 32 bit os. I would stay with XP.

Now I don't hate vista and it is smoother at times. But running vista on a laptop that only does the basic things. I would install xp instead of vista. I am only going to what the hardware allows.

Look at this way. Vista is more dense than xp which requires a good decent modern hardware to run it. Not a beast like most claim but a good decent hardware. XP is perfect for older hardware and i believe xp should still be around even after it was announced dead.

Mario

#2 said: I wonder if this is mainly about Netbooks

It's mainly to do with corporate sys admins - who have seen just how completely terrible it is to work with Vista on networks - telling Dell and HP that Vista is completely out of the question, and that if the hardware doesn't come with XP then they just won't get any hardware. That's my guess at least, having spent even just a few minutes toying with Vista on even our small and relatively up-to-date network.

Last time I heard, Vista was only at 3% on corporate networks, and that was just a month or two ago that I heard that. At this point, Vista is well beyond that painful teething stage that every new MS OS goes through, and well into the "this is really not being accepted" stage.

My guess is that Vista will never in its life see more that 10% deployment in corporate networks, if it even makes it that far.

Vista wasn't made for the people who are supposed to be buying it. It was made for the memory manufacturers, the graphics card makers, the MPAA and the RIAA. It was made for concerns central and peripheral to the computer industry. It wasn't made for Computer Users! David Cross admitted as much when he said that 'features' of Vista are intentionally designed to be annoying. What's worse they thought they could win over buyers simply by pasting a pretty interface on a half baked product. They still think that, hence, 'The Mojave Experiment' commercials. Microsoft deserves to take a big hit for this one.

Vista certainly has its flaws, and I can understand people not moving to it. But Windows 7 should be all nicely polished and shiny, and there shouldn't be any reason to stick with XP.

I see the hate is still strong. I've got some good news for anyone hating on Vista and Microsoft in general though: those who use it don't really care.

They could just release a virus that'll wipe out XP.

I just wanted to say: I love you guys. everytime im like man, i wish i had a life!! there you all are. reminding me I'm really not that bad off. Thanks boys. we are all in this together.

PS xp is for losers. ubuntu FTW

MS has created a desktop OS (VISTA=eye candy=big monitors perfomance=constant HD index etc...) in a Laptop expand age (low power, silence,low resource etc...)

Microsoft: "Why can't you just be a good boy and die?"

Simple, it's because XP is their best effort yet.

Windows 7, the "Consumers Are Smarter Than We Thought" version