Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.mlts22
04-03-08, 11:39 PM
Mentioned on slashdot:
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/04/03/microsoft-extends-xp-through-2010-ultra-low-cost-laptops
Apparently, its just XP Home, but MS is extending the last day it is being produced to June 30, 2010, or one year after MS puts their next client OS out.
My two cents:
XP is fine, but its going on seven years since it was released. No OS in history ever has had to be stuck at one version level for that long due to market pressures. We all know Vista's issues, but all and all, its a security step in the right direction, from BitLocker on servers and laptops, to definite user/administrator separation, to a better Windows Update mechanism.
What is ironic is that Microsoft already has made an OS for lower end PCs, called Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (or WinFLP for short... ironic name). Its more of a terminal server client OS, but I wonder why MS doesn't repackage that for the EeePC and other low end laptops.
Vista's perceived hardware requirements were such a step up that companies couldn't just fold it in in a major OS upgrade cycle like was done with XP over 2000. Companies are holding off on Vista until they refresh all hardware (usually in three year cycles due to tax amortization), staying with Windows XP until Windows 7 comes out, or just migrating to a completely different platform (Linux, Macs, or Suns.) Had MS kept Vista's hardware requirements on par with most hardware, companies would have just bit the bullet and rolled it out. For example, after XP was in the market for a while (definitely after SP2), you rarely hear people clamor for MS to keep selling Windows 2000 or Windows ME.
Maybe MS should consider releasing a "Windows 5.3 [1]" as an OS upgrade for current XP installs, and bundle some decent features with it, such as a dedicated Windows Update tool not dependent on IE, protected mode IE (where if IE 7 on Vista gets compromised the damage done is limited), and some other features that wouldn't increase the OS's memory footprint, but provide security upgrades in historically weak areas of the OS. I personally would argue for UAC, but that is controversial and a lot of people don't like that feature. Perhaps add some gaming and media functionality to WinFLP, and call it done.
[1]: Windows 2000 has a kernel 5.0, Windows XP is at 5.1, Windows Server 2003 is at 5.2.
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/04/03/microsoft-extends-xp-through-2010-ultra-low-cost-laptops
Apparently, its just XP Home, but MS is extending the last day it is being produced to June 30, 2010, or one year after MS puts their next client OS out.
My two cents:
XP is fine, but its going on seven years since it was released. No OS in history ever has had to be stuck at one version level for that long due to market pressures. We all know Vista's issues, but all and all, its a security step in the right direction, from BitLocker on servers and laptops, to definite user/administrator separation, to a better Windows Update mechanism.
What is ironic is that Microsoft already has made an OS for lower end PCs, called Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (or WinFLP for short... ironic name). Its more of a terminal server client OS, but I wonder why MS doesn't repackage that for the EeePC and other low end laptops.
Vista's perceived hardware requirements were such a step up that companies couldn't just fold it in in a major OS upgrade cycle like was done with XP over 2000. Companies are holding off on Vista until they refresh all hardware (usually in three year cycles due to tax amortization), staying with Windows XP until Windows 7 comes out, or just migrating to a completely different platform (Linux, Macs, or Suns.) Had MS kept Vista's hardware requirements on par with most hardware, companies would have just bit the bullet and rolled it out. For example, after XP was in the market for a while (definitely after SP2), you rarely hear people clamor for MS to keep selling Windows 2000 or Windows ME.
Maybe MS should consider releasing a "Windows 5.3 [1]" as an OS upgrade for current XP installs, and bundle some decent features with it, such as a dedicated Windows Update tool not dependent on IE, protected mode IE (where if IE 7 on Vista gets compromised the damage done is limited), and some other features that wouldn't increase the OS's memory footprint, but provide security upgrades in historically weak areas of the OS. I personally would argue for UAC, but that is controversial and a lot of people don't like that feature. Perhaps add some gaming and media functionality to WinFLP, and call it done.
[1]: Windows 2000 has a kernel 5.0, Windows XP is at 5.1, Windows Server 2003 is at 5.2.