Posted on 04/07/2007 6:51:09 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
If you were looking for any glimpse into the mind of Microsoft, this is it: The company has completely abandoned Windows XP, and it has absolutely no plans to ever ship an XP SP3. My guess is that Microsoft will do what it did with the final Windows 2000 Service Pack: Claim years later that it's no longer needed and just ship a final security patch roll-up. This is the worst kiss-off to any Microsoft product I've ever seen, and you'd think the company would show a little more respect to its best-selling OS of all time. But the reality is, Microsoft is looking ahead to new revenue and not behind to money that's already in the bank. And though hundreds of millions of people will be running XP for years to come, despite Microsoft's best efforts at selling them a later Windows version, the company has absolutely no plans to actually support those customers. This flies in the face of its publicly-stated life cycle support plans. And it really freaks me out. It should freak you out as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at windowsitpro.com ...
Why? Because Microslop won't issue any "security" fixes for it? Baaahhhh. If your XP isn't secure by your own hand and efforts....you should be using Linux anyway.
I intend on using XP until the apps I use on it no longer are upgraded by the manufacturers.
THEN it will be off to LinuxLand.
HF
GE Will Discount it because it suits him to. A security patch every now and again = support in his world. Thank goodness he is not running my desktop team..
We’ll be glad to have you here in linux land :-)
I almost can't wait...but I have really grown attached to XP. Someday. Someday.
Then don't. Go to VMware Server, download it, and start playing/working with Linux. It's free.
I already have. As a matter of fact, at this very moment I am sitting in day one of a 4 day class for VMWare Installation and Configuration.
Hopefully, this will be the first step to getting my VCP.
Linux pushers are hilarious, trying to criticize Microsoft for still supporting Windows XP, which was released 6 years ago, when their hokey linux crap isn’t usually supported even 2 years by the original distributor.
Red Hat Linux was version 7 back in 2001. LOL support for it was cut off along with the whole family of Red Hat Linux in 2004. Yet they try to point the finger at others for limiting support ROFL.
Are you sure you want to stand by this statement?
Yep, Red Hat unexpectedly dumped the entire Red Hat Linux product line in 2003 and cut off all support in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux
Funny watching you boys complain about Microsoft still supporting XP as if Linux companies were still supporting their software from 2001.
They just released Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.
RHEL is part of the family, whether you like it or not.
Once again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The entire "Red Hat Linux" product line was dumped, read the link I posted. "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" is a completely different product line, no wonder I find so many holes in your arguments, I know the subject better than you do LOL. Back to the subject at hand, better find something else to criticize Microsoft over, since they're obviously smoking you on product support lifespan.
LOL. You don't even read your own posts. You said the entire family--not product line.
BTW--I don't take wikipedia as gospel, and neither do you when it suits you to disagree.
I shouldn’t be surprised you boys constantly get everything wrong, what should I expect from those that dedicate themselves to such a pathetic cause.
http://linuxfinances.info/info/redhat.html
Red Hat Linux - This “family” of distributions...is being discontinued; come 2004.
Red Hat used to sell support and still give away their OS (which was called Red Hat Linux) with entitlements so you could get updates off of their site. Because their OS was free to upgrade they had a rather short life-cycle (4 years if I remember correctly). but you could update to the next OS for free so it was no huge deal.
In 2003(?) Redhat decided to change its business model and cease to provide entitlements for free (They also stopped providing the iso’s or binary packages for their OS for free). To avoid confusion the took the current RedHat Release (Red Hat 9) and renamed it RedHat Enterprise Linux (Version 2.1). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was put on a slower development cycle, 18-24 months per release and given a longer support cycle of 7 years.
At the same time RedHat started the Fedora Project which would continue providing RedHat Linux for free with update support to the Linux community. To avoid confusion they copied RedHat 9 and started calling it Fedora Core. While Redhat Fronted everything needed to start the organization they did not run it (but do provide a huge amount of directional guidance).
The Fedora Project Took over where RedHat left off it is a distribution which is bleeding edge and has a short turn around for updates. The Fedora project also continued providing support for Red Hat Linux 7/8/9 for some years after those names were discontinued.
People using RedHat 7/8/9 had several choices when RedHat made the move:
(1) Continue using RedHat Linux with updates from the Fedora Project (Which many did for a good long time)
(2) Pony up the money and start using RHEL (Which is the direction I took my shop into)
(3) Switch to a different Distro or OS
The move by Red Hat horked off many people (myself included) but it has ensured the health of Red Hat the company and in the end its always nice to have a vendor who will be around awhile. It was a great business decision by Redhat and they have went out of their way to make it up to their customers.
I manage a Win2k environment, and I have been looking at Linux for the future.
I took one of our stock units, an HP Vectra VL420 (which really is based on an ASUS mb) with a 1.6Ghz P4 and 512MB RAM. That machine works just fine with Win2K, or XP (which we have not been using). Only add-ons are a USB 2.0 card and external DVD, USB HD and Epson inkjet printer.
I did a simple install of SuSE 10.1 with Gnome, and found programs taking forever to start up. Evolution and Firefox were horrendously slow, especially Firefox, and many basic sites (e.g. Mapquest and IMDB) would not load at all (tests were conducted at home with wireless 384kb connection, same connection works fine with XP and 2K). I couldn’t get WINE to install at all. OpenOffice worked adequately.
I am sure I am doing something wrong. How does one optimize a friendly version of Desktop Linux? In theory, I thought it would be more responsive than bloated XP. So far I have not found that to be the case. Does anybody make a desktop distro that is actually optimized for the desktop?
P.S. I do not have religious zeal for any of the big players. I do not like Microsoft’s licensing and pricing structure. We use WordPerfect Office at work, but need (for now) Windows for our c/s Acct software.
I am ready to be persuaded, and am picking Free Republic, because conservatives are more honest people on all things, not just politics.
In the past, I’ve stuck with Slackware. The speeds are pretty fast, however the biggest downside is that it definitely requires some tech savvy to use effectively.
That said, I’d recommend SLED 10 with KDE. It’s free to use; but $50 a year for patches and support (which, IMHO isn’t too bad). If money’s not an issue, look into Red Hat Enterprise.
10.1 has been mind-numbingly slow, IMHO—and IIRC, this was one of its biggest complaints.
It's already clear, crystal in fact. The Linux pimps like to try and complain about the manner in which Microsoft supports their operating systems that were released 7-8 years ago, when the fact is no Linux vendor supports anything at all from that far back. When exposed on their hypocrisy they then resort to further absurdities such as trying to claim providing security patches isn't actually providing support. Most everyone is used to their BS by now though, and still runs these old Windows operating systems despite the constant linux lie campaign against them.
Yes, you fell for the linux lies that are posted everywhere on the internet including here by a small group of zealots that claim Linux is the end all when in fact there's hundreds of different versions because not one of them works perfectly well. You might as well get a real Unix instead of wasting any more time with the foreign clone Linux, and use Apple OSX or Sun Solaris if you're not happy with Windows.
Maybe this is where you're getting confused , nobody is upset about the length of time XP was supported. Seven years is a fine lifetime for an OS. What people are upset about is that the overlap between the release of the only other desktop option and the end of life for the only existing desktop option is too short. If MS had released Vista on schedule or even in 2005 and left consumers the option (darn consumers wanting choice) for a year or two they would have made life far easier for their customers.
I have given you the impression I think 7 years is not a nice life-cycle you have gotten the wrong one and I apologize. If I had a shop with 100 desktops and I had to buy five more (from dell for example) I now can not have a homogeneous desktop environment *unless* I buy XP from a third party (like cdw). Companies dont replace their entire desktop environment in one shot they evergreen out over the course of quarters if not years.
when the fact is no Linux vendor supports anything at all from that far back.
Again its not just about the length of support 5 years to most people is due diligence from a software vendor but you have to give people a few options to upgrade while the other product is still for sale (well you dont have to but dont be surprise if a number of people complain).
When exposed on their hypocrisy they then resort to further absurdities such as trying to claim providing security patches isn't actually providing support.
Its not, providing *only* security patches while other produces like IE dont get updated is not full support. Bug Fixes, component updates `, and security fixes make for support.
still runs these old Windows operating systems despite the constant linux lie campaign against them.
If you need IE7 you aint running 2000 as I predicted two years ago.
Its not just the Linux folks harping on MS for this we have seen noise from the Apple community and from long time Windows users who are ditching windows, in part, because of licensing. Will MS be hurt by this? I dont know with so much windows software out there consumers will be forced to stick with their BOHICA platform. But with Dell now seriously toying around with selling Linux desktops and Apple always keeping their growth up (though I do tire waiting for 10.5) MS very well could see some trouble
-Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.