IMO, good for them. Vista doesnt have any trouble with any of my programs or hardware so I think it is good that they are getting people to move on.

No, I took it down because I decided it better to not be a complete asshole to you.
Hope that's acceptable to you.

So I took a look around Newegg. I don't see anything that meets the specs I pointed out for $500. I found similar, with AMD Processors, but this did not include a monitor.
I see that they do offer Next Business Day on Site.
Also, as I said, a small office with 2-3 pc's, Ok. You can deal with supporting that on home built boxes. On multi-location offices the home build PC quickly loses it's support ability. Now, how does this relate to the original question...
In YOUR particular circumstance, it's ok.. Vista runs your software. In many others, Vista will not run the clients software (yet) and you are not going to be able to get an OEM copy of XP. That is going to add additional costs because you are going to have to pay full retail.

Just FYI, not 2-3 PC's, roughly 20-30. By the way thats more than just one business.

i was getting so frustrated at the utter lack of functionality a windows xp computer allows that i just quit using it three days before my new vista loaded pc was delivered. after ahving used xp extensively for the past 4 years and having only used vista for a few days, i have to say vista is a far superior product. i have had absolutely no hardware problems and only one software conflict, and that's only because the company is no longer around and the product hasnt been updated for several years now. my vista computer runs like a charm. i would never in a million years trade it for some piee of crap xp system. plus vista is about 98 million times better looking. xp always looked like shit. now i dread having to go do my internship work on some damn xp computer, id jsut take my laptop with me if the stupid college would fix the network so it could work with vista.

Here in Oz Dell is advertising 'personalised' computers.....a friend recently bought one without an OS because he didn't want an off the shelf one with Vista installed as standard. He then installed his own copy of XP Pro and is dual booting with Ubuntu.

Seems to me, though, given how many are complaining about having to upgrade their hardware, there's an awful lot of people still running some pretty old machines that'd be pushing it to run XP at full potential as is....so obviously Vista's not gonna run on them, and maybe
for some (to have a truly functional machine, even with XP) a PC upgrade is long overdue anyhow.





I agree! However, my mother has Vista experience of 3.5 on an 6 yo custom built rig with a 2.8 P4, a 256mb nvidia 6200GS GPU, 1gb of DDR400 RAM and an 80gb IDE HDD that runs Vista quite well, even with Aero and dreams enabled....so Vista does not require an expensive top end machine to run effectively. In my mother's case it was a relatively inexpensive RAM upgrade at AU$85.00 to run Vista, so it doesn't necessarily cost an arm and a leg.

I think it's a good idea for manufacturers to have the newest stuff. however, with vista still being, for lack of a better term, "new", phasing out good ol' XP shouldn't be considered....yet. Manufacturers should (even though some do now, i'm talking about in the future) give you the choice of XP or Vista ( and not to mention all of Vista's siblings)i dont think XP should be phased out until late '09. unless there's some big breakthrough with Vista, I can't see XP dying anytime soon.

Astyanax0 - I thought you were no longer contributing to the conversation. Apparently it was going somewhere enough for you to come out of "retirement".

Anyway...



So you work for an IT firm. Right? Well I would assume you guys get fairly high-end machines to work from. Right? So my post still stands. If XP is so slow and unresponsive, but runs less processes and has less graphic eye candy than Vista...how does Vista just rocket around being more graphic intense and running significantly more processes? The answer? Because you just installed it. Give Vista a while, clutter it up with stuff and it won't be so fast anymore. This is sadly true of any system...no matter how wonderful it is or may be. Whenever I do a clean install of XP, its 100 times faster than the previous cluttered install. But what do I know...you are the expert. Right?

This is an interesting conversation but two things stick keep nagging at me.

1. MS knows more than us about the market.  Phasing out XP as OEM won't affect so many people that they will lose business.
2. MS makes the business.  If they phase out XP as OEM it is done.  No need to discuss it. 
   

Small business may have some choice, but any large business have to go with the big shops.  They need the support structure and consistency of the business.
Lets face it, if your apps run on Vista, and the price point for hardware that runs it is always dropping and therefore comparable to an XP build, you are going to want Vista.  It will have better support going forward, updates to your other software will be optimized for it, all the other cool companies will have it.  Seems like a no-brainer to me. 

Not necessarily true. The large (Fortune 100) company I work for is finally replacing the various Win95 and NT4 boxes with Win2000. Only the laptops have XP. And they are still standardized on Office97!


And that's partly the point. Most of the software I need to run (PLC machine programming software, SCADA data collection systems, etc.) do NOT work on the latest and greatest MS OS whenever it comes out. These type of programs need to be stable, and need to run on a known stable OS... NOT the latest bug-infested, half-tested, beta release (no matter what MS labels it) of MS's latest half-baked OS. Vista is a buggy, drm-infested, overbloated pig of an OS, and the closest it's coming to my computer for at least a year or two is in a virtual machine... DEFINITELY not my host!!

The point to all of this is that customer should be offered a choice. Obviously, from the article, many customers are currently exercising that choice, and choosing XP! By taking away that choice, MS will be driving away customers, and may be skating that thin edge of their monopolistic behaviour.

  Driving them away to what?  Apple?  *nix?
MS can't lose new sales based on this.  At worse those not able to upgrade won't and will continue using 2000, XP, NT or WFWG, etc.

I still use MS DOS. I don't get this whole bloated GUI thing.

LMAO

Great a new generation of whinners complaining about Vista , I thought we'd just got rid of all the die hard 98 lovers (dear god why!)
Vista uses dual core in a way that xp can't , it looks nicer , crashes less and is a much better product (testing Vista since last summer for my company) why all the militant XP loving ? have you been using it for the last 7 years ? it is far from great and as long as you have a discreet DX9 card and 1gb of ram Vista will run faster on your machine (yes proven and tested)
Waiting till next Jan to dump OEM XP is a long time i assummed they already had
Vista doesnt need any major fixes although alot of drivers do (Nvidia GRRRRRR)
If you don't like change and progress I think computers maybe the wrong job/passtime maybe try politics

Vista hasn't really met me....yet.....just ask yrag....