If you are of a mind to sign a petition to extend the marketing life of XP, consider visiting www.savexp.com.

I've read where support will be around until 2014 for XP.. by then Vista will have been replaced (probably with another dog OS).
I seriously am thinking Mac for the next computer...

I'm not on the attack, but will you explain to me why folks want XP continued instead of switching to Vista?

Vista is slightly more stable, is more secure, and is better suited for networking environments. I understand folks are upset with the graphics requiring more resources but 90% of those can be disabled....

Just Wondering.

Derek...the kid who uses XP through his Parallels on his Apple but also has Vista loaded....

I personally have no experience with Vista, so maybe I'm just following the 'Bash Vista' crowd, but I have heard nothing good about Vista.. D, you're the only one I know who says it's more stable... I know my daughter is constantly having to reboot her puter with Vista... she attends classes for Cal State Fullerton's online nursing MBA program and has lost all her work several times... she's so frustrated with it...

More stable... not in the experience of most who have tried it. And it's definitely not ready for corporate prime time.

Stability can be a function of the programs operating?

That's always true. But the OS must be able to handle them. See "real world" LOL.

I'm going on a year with my current Dell Inspiron 640m. It has Vista.

In all honesty, I don't think I've had to reboot any more than I had to with my previous Dell, which ran XP. My usage is more frequent/often than what I would consider typical. This is my business computer, which sees no less than 80hrs/week. More often than not, the number exceeds that. I have had the computer on for stints of 10 days at a time, without needing a reboot.

In all honesty, I'm not sure if it I was just sick of XP, or I wanted something new. But I'm pleased with Vista.

When I ran Vista on a daily bases, which was last Summer before I bought my MacBook, I had the same experience as F14. Vista integrates and array of handy built in features.

I ran Office 2007, AVG Free, and many other smaller programs. I installed Acrobat 6 but it was not Vista compatible so I dumped it.

I tend to think the REAL world needs to advance to modern times. If you're running out of date software packages, I think that your software package is the problem, NOT Vista. I think it's royally unfair to expect an operating system to improve on the old system, the old problems, yet not expect to use modernized software to go with it.

Is Vista the problem or is it the software that is 10 years old or based off 10 year old technology?

IMHO...it's not Vista.

C'mon D-Rod; I bet Vista still has 10 year old APIs in there.

And from a corporate perspective, if we upgraded to Vista, we would have to use Office 2007, and Microsoft did to Office what they did to Vista. Older versions of Office won't run.

The real problem is that for some unknown but stupid reason, Microsoft really changed the functionality of Office - so much so that I now need to send all my users to training - to use a word processor software that they have been using for 20 years.

That ain't gonna happen. Part of me thinks that Microsoft changed the functionality just to get more revenue for training.

In the REAL world, the application should dictate the operating system; not the other way around. Corporate America doesn't buy computers to play with an operating system - they buy computers to perform a function. The operating system simply provides a means to perform that function. When the system centers around the operating system rather than the application, as in the case of Vista, then its a means run amok.

We have one application that cost about $150K. Having to change out that application just to work with an operating system is asinine.

For these reasons, Vista will never make it in the business world - unless some things change. A lot of IT Managers are going to be fired if they start putting Vista into the corporate world.

Funny... we can still get new computers with XP loaded on them. We have a corporate select license with Microsoft, and we have not had any indication that XP won't continue to be available.

We just by-pass the gains with the new systems? Office 2007 is much better than 2003 in my opinion. Yes, it is a little goofy at first with it's different layout, but once learned, it *IS* more efficient. Word 2007 with a basic user can do many things that previously required InDesign (expensive). The new XML filing format is lightyears better than the old system. The multiple user system is where the gains are...a productive work environment managed by a computer with simple logins for users...not 15 million thumb drives, 17 million versions walking around on 5 different backup servers. The direction Microsoft is headed is the correct direction, IMHO.

And for 150,000k software that needs old equipment, use old equipment. Why should the rest of the World be stuck because there is still SOME antique software that has not be overhauled?

DOS 3.2 and WordPerfect 4.2

Who could want or need more???

ME!

OK...we'll through Lotus 1-2-3 in there too for spreadsheet work!

Eh Google's applications are 10^infinity times better than those antique [censored] programs.

I get the feeling i'm upsetting you guys. Microsoft has to be competitive. Google's system will run them out of the water in a hurry if they can't provide more features!