The Big Question Concerning XP vs. Vista to me!

[rhodges 6]

There are a number of posts comparing these two operating systems already dealing with the generic qualities of both. Included is consideration for when XP will no longer be available. The consensus seems to be about a year, and/or when the current stock is exhausted. Speculation also is that Microsoft support will cease within about three years.My specific question is: When support ceases for XP, will that mean that after reinstallation from the CD's, one will no longer be able to reactivate XP by telephone to Microsoft? If so, seems that we are going to be forced to go to Vista, or backtrack to Windows 98SE or some other pre-XP operating system or be dead in the water.Although I have never owned one, it sometimes sure looks like the "MAC/Apple" zealots have something going for them. I just wish there was a flightsim version for that system. If nothing else, the competition might cover a lot of hassle (Yea, I realize it also might even make it worse).Happy flying:RTH

[RFields5421 1]

This is a quarterly e-mail update we get from Microsoft at my company. Just received it today:Please note upcoming critical product transitions to ensure your software is supported and your environment is secure.Transitioning from Mainstream Support to Extended Support- Visual Studio .NET 2002

[rhodges 6]

Thanks Reggie:I am not really worrying now, nor will I in the future, but I am curious. We are crossing a new bridge concerning reinstallation of XP in future years. Your speculation (if I picked the right word) that reactivation will no longer be necessary after support ends probably would be a relief for many.Respectfully:RTH

[RFields5421 1]

Reactivation will almost certainly be required, but the phone reactivation will almost certainly disappear.None of us, and probably no one at MS, knows yet how that will be handled in cases where on-line reactivation does not work.The systems could be set to allow unlimited reactivations. It could be set to tell that specific computer that reactivation is no longer required. The current system could be continued indefinitely.It is unrealistic to expect Microsoft to allow thousands of multiple activations of one serial number.XP in two years will be where Windows 2000 is today.

[Guest iwantmydc3]

Thanks for the info Reggie and I agree with you completely the best wasy to acquire Vista is to buy a new machine. That is what I have been advising.Windows 98 is no longer supported, by the way. I keep trying to tell my Dad he needs to move to XP because there are no new security patches, and I gave him an AMD system with XP SP 2 installed, but he just won't switch, lol, took him ages to stop using DOS. Oh, well.

[Guest Charlie]

>You are not going to a pre-XP operating system unless you are>willing to change to FS2000 or FS2002.Incorrect. FS2004 runs beautifully on W98SE. FSX is the first MSFS that won

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

>I couldn

[aerdt 0]

Actually, we just received information from MS that they have extended the support of the XP operating systems from 2009 to 2014.No need to hurry.Pat

[Guest christianholmes]

>Reactivation will almost certainly be required, but the phone>reactivation will almost certainly disappear.>>None of us, and probably no one at MS, knows yet how that will>be handled in cases where on-line reactivation does not work.>>The systems could be set to allow unlimited reactivations. It>could be set to tell that specific computer that reactivation>is no longer required. The current system could be continued>indefinitely.>>It is unrealistic to expect Microsoft to allow thousands of>multiple activations of one serial number.>>XP in two years will be where Windows 2000 is today.>>Well, if you are an MSDN subscriber, you will find special keys for you. For example, I have a key that will activat XP ten times.If you download Win98 off the site, they give everybody the same key.I certainly think that they will keep XP on MSDN for a long time to come, and if it requires activation, it may well be the same key for everyone.My guess is that there will be a version that does not require activation. There will be huge legal issues for them if they don't let people who purchased an XP license continue to use it. There is no end-date for the license, so it must be available indefinately.

[Guest Charlie]

>Good Lord. Worrying about whether Microsoft is going to swoop>in in a black helicopter and take your XP CD from you on April>14, 2009 is not a good way to spend your time (black>helicopter added for emphasis). >>There are a lot of people on this forum that know a lot about>flying and FSX. There don't seem to be as many people who>know about operating systems and software in general. There>are also a LOT of people that prognosticate about Vista and>the evil Microsoft who don't run Vista, have never seen Vista,>and probably learn what they know about Vista on some>pass-the-Koolaid Apple or Linux forum (re: Vista sucks), or>from the conventional wisdom that has formed on this forum>that Vista is evil incarnate.>>Here is what Vista is:>>1. An OS that adds new features that XP doesn't have. It will>use more memory and resources than XP, but it also uses them>more intelligently (SuperFetch, ReadyBost, ReadyDrive). If>you have the hardware, it will get more out of it. If you>don't have the hardware, use XP until you do. >>2. The only OS that has DirectX 10, which is what will make>FSX look its best in the future.>>Number 2 did it for me. 1 was just gravy.>>If you get a new computer in the next year or two and want to>run FSX, IT WILL HAVE VISTA ON IT. The "worst" option is your>only option. The horror!!! :( I suppose you could reformat>and install XP if you want.>>I chose the "worst" option before the "worst" option was even>generally available (in December). FSX works fine on the>"worst" option (with 2 gigs of RAM). And its even 64-bit>Vista (the WORST "worst" option).>>Vista is new now, so there can be some driver issues depending>on your hardware. But that's getting ironed out as we speak,>and will only get better with time.>>Rhodges, you don't have to worry about anything for awhile. >And even after 2009, you'll still be able to use XP...just>activate it over the Internet. > >>I wouldn

[MickBz 0]

Hi,Three out of four PC's In my household still havewindows ME running. ME is really a FAT version ofWinXP (NTFS). They are as reliable as My XP one - AND - we still receive Microsoft's automatic updates regularly.Hows that for "not supported" H.A.N.D.

[McCrash 3]

>Hi,>>Three out of four PC's In my household still have>windows ME running. ME is really a FAT version of>WinXP (NTFS). They are as reliable as My XP one - AND - >we still receive Microsoft's automatic updates regularly.>>Hows that for "not supported" >>H.A.N.D.I don't think ME has anything to do with WXP.http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsMe/

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

>I learned long ago that the soundest advice on the NET comes>from those with alcoholic beverages in their handles. The>forum is immeasurably stronger for your piece. Thank you.>>:-beerchug :-beerchug :-beerchug :-beerchug >Thanks...cool smilies. Sorry, I kind of went off a little.

[Guest Ozzie]

This makes an interesting read for thiose that have not seen ithttp://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.htmlNo further comment

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Yeah, the DRM in Vista has issues. BTW, I can confirm that Windows Me is nothing like XP. Me was built off the Windows 95/98 codebase. XP was built off the 2000 codebase, which came from NT. NT was a brand new operating system that totally diverged from Win 95/98. This caused compatibiliy issues, but had a lot of advantages because they could start from a clean slate.