Why did Windows XP last so long?

[Daniel]

Something I was just thinking about is, "Why did Windows XP last so long?"

Here's the MS OS line up:

Windows 98: Released 1998
Windows ME: Released 2000
Windows 2000: Released 2000
Windows XP: Released 2001
Windows Vista: Released 2007
Windows 7: Released 2009

As you can see, Windows XP was the popular OS for 6 years, but all the others have been replaced with a new version almost instantly.

[Josh]

I think XP lasted so long because it was the OS that came when everyone started getting computers around 2000-2001, because a few years before that almost no one had cell phones, and all of the digital stuff we use today didn't exist. I think it was just in the right place at the right time.  And it continues to get used due to the compatibility with almost everything. (unlike vista)

[Forested665]

the longhorn project was put on hold somewhere around 2004 and research was done to move to a complete new kernel (would mean xp would be incompatible) and it was then picked back up as the smarter of the two path and since about 30% of vista is new all the bugs had to be worked out this set them abck another year and a half until they could get an RC stage wich was then released before all the bugs were fixed. since XP has been around so long its what the people want and its what people have so software and hardware vendors are going to be pressed by the buyers to continue support for it even though it slows the progression of operating system developement.
Windows is most likely the worst thing that has ever happened to the hardware world.

[GhostShip]

Windows is most likely the worst thing that has ever happened to the hardware world.

 

Really ? Any explanation of why you think this is the case ?

[Forested665]

the explination is already there
http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm
second page of the interveiw goes more into microsofts involvement

Anyone who lived the era of the first Amiga personal computers will recall how utterly unique an approach they had to computing, and what direction and advance they took the home computer to. Since then there have been many failed attempts at resuscitating that excitement. But this is not about the Amiga, because it ultimately ended up being a failure for other reasons. My point about the Amiga was that radical hardware designs drove development and achieved things that software evolution on existing designs would not take us to.

At that time the IBM personal computer and compatibles were still clunky, expensive, glorified word processing DOS machines. Owners of them always were putting in different graphics and sound cards yearly, upgrading their hardware to try and approach what was built into hardware like the Amiga and the Atari PCs.

Enter the dark era. The hardware driven computer developments failed due to poor marketing, development and a whole host of other problems. This is when the software became king, and instead of competing, all hardware was slowly being designed to yield to the software and operating system design.

We're all aware of what became the defacto operating system standard at the time. As a result there was no market whatsoever for hardware that didn't work within the framework of that operating system. As a defacto operating system did take over, all other operating system markets and competition failed one after the other and the hardware manufacturers found themselves marketing for an ever shrinking range of software rather than the other way around.

Hardware has since become subservient to the operating system. It started around 1994 and is just as true today 13 years later. Worse yet, all the hardware manufacturers slowly bought each other out, further shrinking the hardware choices. So now the hardware manufacturers just make faster and bigger versions of everything that has been done before. We're still plugging in faster CPUs, more RAM, bigger hard drives, faster graphics cards and sound cards just to service the operating system. Hardware driven innovation cannot be afforded by the market any more. There is no money in it. There will be no market for it. Computers are boring.

i feel that bit summerizes best why windows is the worst thing to ever happen

[White Stripes]

there was even a time when dos running computers would have been unique

take the tandy 1000 (and its decendants) only the last version of the series could run windows... and they had to butcher the original setup to do it...

then theres the gravis ultrasound and AWE32 soundcards.... and all the neat hardware tricks that could be done in dos with them...

hell even the hacks of the covox speech thing (wikipedia it) and the trick of squeezing PWM samples (voice music whatever a mono soundcard could do) through the internal speaker....


VESA videocards of course not so much.... but the VESA standards had enough to make comps unique...

enter windows NT with its 'hardware abstraction layer' and there went  unique soundcards... (no the SBLive and its relatives dont count... they load soundfont data into system ram... and still end up just being used for midi... if anyone even uses -that- anymore... oh nvm.. most just use onboard sound and microsofts GS softsynth... and the external midi/joy port isnt even there anymore... hmm...)

and of course then DirectX (half baked crap) took the unique out of any videocard (till videocard vendors allowed the programming of the GPUs... but even then it has to go through windows)... but wheres VESA?

Hardware driven innovation cannot be afforded by the market any more. There is no money in it. There will be no market for it. Computers are boring.

but now.... look what linux is allowing to happen.... its cpu agnostic... and if the app is open source so is the app... roll whatever neat hardware you want... and youve got a unique system that you can still run 'regular' apps on.... (imagine linux on an amiga with the appropriate hardware drivers.... firefox and a videotoaster running side by side... and no guru meditations )

oh btw, on a PC you can still use the covox speech thing and the PC speaker PWM trick with linux too.... (along with the other 'unique' hardware that doesnt work in windows) and VESAs still there too...

granted linux isnt going to put the full uniqueness of the days of old back into computing.... but its throwing one hell of a wrench of the corporate works of MS, intel and 'bland' computing....

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

I never really thought of my computer as boring until now. I think I may shoot it.

[Forested665]

you might find the second half of that interveiw interesting stripes.
con k made a patch to hybrid the linux kernel between a GPOS and an RTOS and then stopped coding for it around the 2.6.0.0 release. the interveiw was made after he stopped coding and explains in long detail why he did so. As much of a shame as it is. it seems he stopped coding to make a statement to richard and linus.

[White Stripes]

i stopped at kernel 2.4... its whats on my 233mhz 128mb ram laptop... works like a charm... (faster than 2k and much more stable than 9x) ... ive never used 2.6... i heard they were doing this to it but i didnt know it was that bad... guess i'll stick with kernels 2.2 and 2.4...

interesting he mentions stuttering sound and video... never had a problem with it with these old kernels... guess cos their old...


edit: and of course old kernels let you play around with old tinkerable hardware...
the new hardware i see rolling off the assembly lines is... scary looking... (WTF happened to the interrupt driven ps2 keyboard port?)

[Forested665]

thats all my new mobo has for ps2 interupt keyboard and then in place of the mouse theres two USB ports : /

[bu44er]

In my personal oppinion i have tried Vista and did not like it, i have tried Windows XP and found it so restricted. I now use Ubuntu and fingers crossed, touch wood everything is fine and i can make it do everything i need to. The even better part is it free and OPEN SOURCE lol.

[White Stripes]

ive seen the ps2 keyboard port with 2 usb ports where the ps2 mouse port was.... but mice were first connected to com1 (modem on com2) then they were connected to the ps2 port .... or there was the oddball 'bus mouse'.... and now usb... so mice never really had a 'standard' port.... even the ps2 mouse port was a 'hack' of the ps2 keyboard port.... (same port same type of signals different interrupt) so i can understand it.... but usb -keyboards- i cannot....

[White Stripes]

@zerocool

i found XP too.... playskool toy like at first... then too restrictive and hold you by the hand second.... then just plain annoyingly bloated later.... then when i tried to install etherial (aka wireshark now) i realised SP2 was.... for lack of a better phrase.... screwed up in the TCP/IP department....

gibson and the other paranoid geeks (mainly gibson) screaming that windows shouldnt have raw sockets support sounded stupid at the time.... but... MS took it out anyway... (with no benefit to the end user)....


.....why does that little dog want to help me find files?..... kinda surprising that microsoft finally did something with the microsoft agent system tho.... but try making that dog talk using the microsoft 'sam' voice..... kinda creepy to have that little dog talk with this glitchy 'overlord' sounding really deep voice...

[Forested665]

of all the things microsoft can do. they never seem to do what they need to.

[Josh]

I really don't see windows going away anytime soon, at least as a major OS.   It basically was just timing, windows became popular to everyone because it was easy for the end user to use, if anyone else (mac), would have come out with an easy to use OS (aka not junk), people would have all gone to using that.

It's just the problem of compatability. If everyone uses the same thing it's just easier for developers to create products. They end up wasting less money making several versions of the same software.

[Cobra]

(I'm speaking solely from the user standpoint, not the technical standpoint.)

First of all, some of you talk as if the average and below average user knows enough about computers for more advanced means and all of the reasons that you come up with would matter to them as well. The "average" user is still someone who only knows how to turn on the computer and run applications already installed, keeps automatic updates on at all times, and may know what virus protection and a firewall are but is not certain if it is running. The below average person fears every movement that they make on the computer thinking that the FBI will show up if they make what they think is a major mistake on the Internet. For this, talk about kernels and "restrictions" and Linux OS's are pointless.

Neither of these groups know anything about what a kernel does, much less anything technical. The only "restrictions" that they understand is that either something runs or it doesn't run. These users buy whatever OS happens to be on the shelves or whatever a friend suggests (the least amount of work that they have to do -- such as installing another OS -- the better) and then keep the computer until it explodes or there things that they need for the computer to do that it can't because the older OS is no longer supported.

The next issue is familiarity. People who have a hard time learning how to use a computer or specific programs eventually learn how to use them. Then a new OS comes out (such as Vista) and even if they think it looks cool, they learn that the application that they have been running for so long is not compatible in Vista (no update is created because it's not a top brand or an old piece of software). Also, if the person had owned or used Windows 95 or 98, the look of XP can be changed enough so that it feels like they are almost using the same computer. Can the same be said for Vista to XP or to 98?

Many stick with XP becuase they see no reason to change because XP still works just fine.

[Forested665]

@Josh
that isnt why apple failed for the time they were on par with amiga and commondoore and as still today use the best (and sometimes still expiramental) hardware. and thus there systems cost 3400 bux when the tandy was what 1200?
usability wasnt really looked at nor was compatability because printers werent designed to work on 30 different computers. people back then really looked at what the computer does the price.
and for the price the 16bit machines that windows 3.x came on were alot cheaper!

[Bluey_412]

of all the things microsoft can do. they never seem to do what they need to.

Well, if you're such an expert, bacon, why not just go right ahead and develop a new, perfect o/s that is 100% compatible, so that the vast majority of computer users will be able to use it, and show MS just how clever you really are.

You're trying to do that on these boards...

[Bluey_412]

but dont forget, too, it has to be 100% compatible with every possible hardware combination that the user base can possibly build, and thats a LOT of hardware permutations...