Immortal XP

Windows XP is without a doubt one of the most appreciated and enduring operating systems that ever existed in our world. However, following Moore's Law of the doubling of the number of transistors that fit on a chip every two years, which gives us our IT evolution, from this we can conclude that a similar trend is at work in operating systems. We consider the current situation of XP with this in mind. This question entered the daily agenda upon the launch of Vista. 

Every few years a new operating system appears which will replace the old operating system, or at least one that's considered old. On paper this seems completely logical; however, after the launch of Windows Vista it became clear for many people that this can be a hard goal to achieve.

Throughout this article I shall try to debate why this could happen, what causes lead to this situation, how this influences the users (both companies and home users), and what possible solutions may come for us in the future. I will remain as objective as I can and try to present the situation as it is without supporting either of the two big operating systems: Windows Vista and Windows XP. Focus on the facts!

For a start, let's summarize the appearance and existence of each one so we can see what the problem is.

Windows XP (the XP comes from eXPerience if you ever wondered) is a line of operating systems for the PC developed by Microsoft. Its first release date was October 25, 2001. It's the successor to Windows Millennium and Windows 2000 Professional and is also the first one based on the Windows NT kernel which was made for the masses.

Compared to its predecessors, the main advantages were the driver-rollback capability, faster start-up, a new user interface with a new framework to design new styles for it, fast user switching, the ClearType font for LCDs, Remote Desktop, and also some additional network technologies support. At the end of 2006 it had already sold 540 million copies. That's quite an achievement and clearly hints at a successful OS.

Windows Vista is the successor to XP and was released worldwide on January 30, 2007. This means that it is five years newer than the previous operating system, which is the longest span between the releases of two Microsoft Windows operating systems. This could indicate that major updates were made, and the list of new features at first sight indicates this; or it could just be that the developers in Microsoft's Windows software department weren't hurrying at all. First, there is the graphical user interface (which heavily uses the graphics card present in a PC) and, of course, with it the already well-known Aero visual style.

What else do we have that is new compared to the old operating system? Well it has a rewritten Windows Shell (everything that relates to the eXPlorer.exe as it is better known by average users), a new search/indexing design, more security improvements, Internet Explorer 7 included, Media Player 11, and much more that is less used by mainstream users -- and no doubt considered less important by them. 

Until now, from what I have presented there is nothing wrong, just a new OS with many new options in it. However, the problem is that in March 2008, almost two years after we were given a glimpse of the new operating system, the market share ratio is quite devastating. XP dominates the market with a 73.59 percent share while Vista barely reaches the 15 percent barrier, with just 14.02 percent. That's quite a difference, considering that the first service pack has also been  released for Vista.

Before we go any further we need to observe Microsoft's plans for us.

• June 30, 2008 - This was the last date that OEM versions could be sold, meaning systems with Windows XP pre-installed.
  
• January 31, 2009 - By this date, Microsoft will stop selling copies of Windows XP through either one of their distribution methods.
  
• April 14, 2009 - On this date Microsoft will withdraw its technical support for Windows XP for mainstream users -- in other words, end users, or the vast majority of the world. 
  
• April 8, 2014 - Figuratively speaking, on this date Microsoft will put the cross on the grave of the XP operating system. Until this date, users will still get patches, but only in the form of security fixes.

Many companies started the next life cycle of their systems with the Windows XP platform, even now, in the United States, in 2008. It often seems as if XP can run forever; the only concerns are the patches and fixes for the evolving security question. Support for Win98 was discontinued only in 2006, so XP is still a solid option. The next life cycle, which takes around 3-4 years on average, can be gotten through effortlessly with XP.

But before you say that you won't ever need Vista, consider that XP is old by any standard. Nobody will guarantee the security of your data without the crucial security fixes. So withdrawing this kind of support is a strong message to companies that they should (or better yet, must) comply and upgrade to Vista.

XP is quite old but good as far as hardware resource usage, stability, and software support. Judging from this you may say that there is nothing attractive for you in Vista. Even without patches XP can continue running for many years.  However, malware can appear without the presence of the fixes, which is a concern for everyone, especially companies. It's with this point in mind that Microsoft tries heavily to convince businesses that it's in their best interest to switch to the next step, Vista.

PCs are still loved (hint: Steam statistics) and Windows should know this; many people refuse to switch simply because they are afraid of the increased resource usage. Microsoft is in a tricky situation... if they had launched something similar to XP (to be in tune with the average user) they would be accused of marketing and just trying to take money away from people. Ironically, Vista's differences from XP are considered too drastic, and more and more users are deciding that it doesn't make sense to pay the price.

(Steam Survey -> Courtesy of Steam)

The criticisms, such as that Vista consumes too many resources, aren't entirely without a solid base. But then, every new Windows operating system consumes more resources than the one before. Remember the step from Win98 to XP? It came with a major resource usage increase. People should accept that if you want more, you need to use more resources. However, Microsoft should keep the desires of their market in mind -- because people can and will choose not to buy the new operating system if they perceive its nature as a "resource hog" to be a problem. That's capitalism and democracy at work.

Of course here Microsoft tries to fight back by acting in such a way that we'll consider it to be in our best interest to upgrade, even if we don't need to. On the other hand, if you bypass this issue of increased resource usage you will get  little in exchange. Moving from Win 98 to XP gave us some major updates (like PPoE support and increased stability). Remember all those blue screens in Windows 98? With Windows XP, the number of of blue screens were reduced to such a level that the operating system could be considered nearly reliable.

But Windows Vista fails to bring the kinds of major improvements that came with its predecessor. If you bypass the Visual style part (because very few people run an OS for the sake of looking at a beautiful user interface), you will get very little compared to XP (or the Windows 2003 Server Edition preferred by a select group of people). On paper of course the benefits are endless, but in real life usage (like booting time, applications speed, games performance), the end results are close to XP or in some cases even below it.

Some undisputed advantages for a real-life user can be named, such as the new task manager. Note, however, that this still fails to impress if you replaced the built-in task manager in XP with a more professional one like Process Explorer -- which is freeware. Vista also offers speech recognition, the new network and sharing center, the new Windows Update, and of course the sound control for each application. The list goes on and on. But if you used XP for a long time, you expect improved performance from a new operating system instead of tons of new extended options. The truth is, until a user hears that he or she will truly benefit from taking the step of getting Vista, he or she won't bother to upgrade, at least until the next system update. This can take time; some users may choose to skip over Vista and invest in its successor, Windows 7 (as it is currently known). 

Additionally, we have the driver issue support. The situation gets worse if we are talking about notebooks, especially older ones. Many people are using notebooks to satisfy their office/multimedia needs and don't need the core2 duo performance or a more potent GPU. In Microsoft's defense, there is the ReadyBoost technology. If you have little memory in your system and you have an extra free USB port and a USB stick which also supports this technology, you will be surprised how much this can help. However, this requires an additional step to complete and humans are lazy by nature, and prefer what they can get without investing effort.

One of the most criticized properties of Vista is its excessive RAM usage. It's known that if you intend to run it smoothly you need at least 2 GB of memory. However many PCs lack this much memory, and I think this is the main reason so many people complain about Vista in technology-oriented forums. 

Direct X 10 support for Vista can be, and is at the moment for gamers, the only true reason they'll upgrade their OS. This is a quite weak reason, as we lack a GPU that can handle running a game/application with High-Res that is written under DirectX 10. Vista has this ace in its hand, but it is hard for me to decide which of the previously mentioned issues stops me more from using it. Some hope that this will change in the future came with the launch of the Game Assassins Creed from Ubisoft. It seems that this uses a few DirectX 10.1 functions, as a 20% performance increase with the ATI video cards can be observed by using this technology.

For XP you definitely need anti-virus and anti-spyware software. You're probably used to it. However with Vista this isn't mandatory (but it is recommended). The average user is convinced, however, that they need it. Vista is more secure  thanks to the UAC also. So this is a real advantage, but not observed by the mass of users. Vista is configured for first time users, and this restrictive behavior angers the more advanced users because they can't easily change settings and other additional features or functions. And the loudest voice of the online world comes from these people. No wonder there is so much negativity surrounding Vista. This was only to be expected.

It may seem that Microsoft invests more in how it looks rather than how it works. Also people are more used to the old look while Vista, beyond its face lift, benefited from some heavy reorganizing and renaming. This led to a situation where an experienced XP user wastes hours finding an option that is right in  front of his/her eyes, just because of a re-branded name like "sleep." Also here we can mention some useless programs are automatically run, although many users won't use them, like Table PC Support or Tape Drive Media. That just gives more black marks to Vista. Somehow the logic used when Microsoft designed the new layout escapes me and many other users.

We couldn't end this discussion without mentioning Vista's other rivals. By this I mean Linux and OS X. Both of them are trying to garner users. However, for games, support often only goes as far as Windows; this is one of the ways that Microsoft manages to keep its near-monopoly on the market. I hope a change will come some day, and we'll have more games and applications for Linux and OS X. This could force Microsoft to create something new and revolutionary, just like XP was for its time. For now it seems that they are struggling to force Vista upon their customers. And people don't like being manipulated.

From early experiences of the new OS, after the first reviews, many were disappointed and decided to remain with the old but stable and working Windows XP. As I mentioned earlier, Microsoft, for some obvious marketing and monetary reasons, tried to sell its product. Many became scared that they would be forced to make the step to the new OS, and naturally online petitions appeared where everyone who wants to stick with the old operating system was invited to sign up.

Despite Vista's improvements (many came with that first service pack), more and more people supported XP and put increasing pressure on Microsoft. Initially Microsoft stood strongly behind Vista despite its problems. In time, however, after the release of Vista's first Service Pack, they were forced to recognize that, while it wasn't selling badly, it was not selling as well as expected and desired.

CEO Steve Ballmer raised some hopes for an extended life cycle in a conference in Mons, Belgium. Later on Microsoft nixed this. The official statement says that XP won't be sold after June 30, but anyone can downgrade from Vista. This option will be maintained by many PC vendors until the middle of 2009.

Additionally Microsoft decided to re-brand the Home Edition of Windows XP and provide a new version under the name of Windows Embedded. This contains something like the properties of a home edition of XP, and is designed for low-end systems. These systems couldn't run Vista anyway due to the operating system's high hardware demands, so this step was no victory for XP. Here Microsoft only tried to become competitive within the emerging new market segment, facing Linux as its adversary. 

(Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Microsoft says that if need be, they will revise their roadmap, but so far it looks like everything will go as planned. Bill Gates stated that Windows 7 will appear at the end of 2009 -- well, more exactly, beta versions, as explained later by Microsoft's official PR department. Anyway, the official release is slated for 2010. Recently a few screenshots have appeared showing Milestone 1 of the next big thing.

Many companies decided to maintain XP as their operating system, but not because they couldn't afford to make the upgrade. It's because this will let them skip over Vista and go directly to the next OS, which may be more popular than Vista. 

I could wear the letters off my keyboard arguing over which operating system is better, Vista or XP. If we look at Vista from the point of view of a user who already has a valid Windows XP key, the improvements brought by Vista do not justify an upgrade. However, for someone that buys a new system and with it a new OS, Vista is definitely the best choice. 

Of course, Windows XP will go down in history as one of the operating systems which helped the spread of the PC. As for Vista, it is something that promised much, gave much, but failed to sell, as many refused to accept it. 

This situation may have been provoked by a multitude of factors, such as the  popularity amassed by XP throughout the five years it reigned, and the good Service Packs delivered for XP (including here the recently launched Service Pack 3; if you are interested in these improvements I invite you to read the official release data sheet, but be warned, it's quite long). Perhaps the vast majority of users simply aren't prepared for this step.

Nevertheless, the truth is that at least now there will be a pretty reliable OS for low-end PCs in the person of Microsoft Embedded. The long waiting period before the release of the new OS helped users at every level to become familiar with the old OS. The new OS perhaps came too late; change is something that every human tries to resist. As long as they aren't forced to take the final step, opposition will be present for any new OS.

For Vista, there is a single ray of hope for an upcoming massive success. This is the spread of DirectX 10. For this to work, the technology would have to be used on a daily basis. The truth is that XP can be made to look like Vista (modernized by numerous existing transformation packs), so why should you take the risk to upgrade?

Unless you know you will get some serious benefits (free Anti Aliasing for games in DX10 and stuff like this), you shouldn't bother. Many people will choose to skip Vista altogether and hold out for Windows Seven, skipping the current OS without any regrets.

I invite you to sign up in our forums and express your thoughts about the situation, state your opinions over this issue, and say which one you support and why. Also, you can make yourself heard here in the comments; feel free to do so, and if you want to talk directly with me you can find me under the name Yeti on the DevHardware Forums or e-mail me. Have a great day and thank you for reading my article.