Quake3World

For consumer products, security updates will be available through the end of the mainstream phase. For Windows XP Home Edition, there will be no security updates after 12/31/06." Regarding paid support for problems unrelated to security patches, I was told that "Users who want to continue to receive support after the Microsoft assisted and paid support offerings have ended may visit the Retired Product Support Options Web site.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060103-5891.html

what kind of a moron actually buys microsoft products?...

I won't be moving to Vista for a while. I mean, I haven't heard anything too terribly spectacular and ground-breaking about it. Besides, what kind of moron jumps to another OS right when it's released?

eepberries wrote:I won't be moving to Vista for a while. I mean, I haven't heard anything too terribly spectacular and ground-breaking about it. Besides, what kind of moron jumps to another OS right when it's released?

every major corperation in the usa :icon32:

Freakaloin wrote:what kind of a moron actually buys microsoft products?...

you?

so what's so great about vista anyway?

booker wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:what kind of a moron actually buys microsoft products?...

you?

nope...and my bother in law is a senior director at the company.....everytime i see him and tell him i use microspft products but never pay for them...he gets mad...

primaltheory wrote:

eepberries wrote:I won't be moving to Vista for a while. I mean, I haven't heard anything too terribly spectacular and ground-breaking about it. Besides, what kind of moron jumps to another OS right when it's released?

every major corperation in the usa :icon32:

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

primaltheory wrote:

eepberries wrote:I won't be moving to Vista for a while. I mean, I haven't heard anything too terribly spectacular and ground-breaking about it. Besides, what kind of moron jumps to another OS right when it's released?

every major corperation in the usa :icon32:

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

it was a joke...laugh

oh.

Freakaloin wrote:what kind of a moron actually buys microsoft products?...

Me, im a moron for paying 7$ for my XP Pro copy..

SOAPboy wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:what kind of a moron actually buys microsoft products?...

Me, im a moron for paying 7$ for my XP Pro copy..

shit man, you got ripped off

That should be against the law, they should support their product at least 5 years after the purchase date. You can't just stop supporting your software on the hopes of the customer buying your new product because of it. I think the FCC should get involved here. You think?

Denz wrote:That should be against the law, they should support their product at least 5 years after the purchase date. You can't just stop supporting your software on the hopes of the customer buying your new product because of it. I think the FCC should get involved here. You think?

na, just get a xp pro torrent and your set.

Denz is right, if this is true of course.

as always, with anything Microsoft related, this is taken way out of proportion

I wasn't aware that Home and Pro required seperate patches.

Denz wrote:That should be against the law, they should support their product at least 5 years after the purchase date. You can't just stop supporting your software on the hopes of the customer buying your new product because of it. I think the FCC should get involved here. You think?

Why is there any reason it should be illegal? I mean, I agree that it's lame, but I really don't see why it should be illegal. Take video games for example. Some companies just release the game and then that's it. They move onto their next project. They might have one or two updates to fix a couple problems, but besides that, they're done with it. I don't see why Microsoft doing this would be any worse

eepberries wrote:

Denz wrote:That should be against the law, they should support their product at least 5 years after the purchase date. You can't just stop supporting your software on the hopes of the customer buying your new product because of it. I think the FCC should get involved here. You think?

Why is there any reason it should be illegal? I mean, I agree that it's lame, but I really don't see why it should be illegal. Take video games for example. Some companies just release the game and then that's it. They move onto their next project. They might have one or two updates to fix a couple problems, but besides that, they're done with it. I don't see why Microsoft doing this would be any worse

nobody likes those games anyway...If they keep this up, they will slowly loose more people to linux...

I say by 2010 we will have easy to use guis for linux (like easy for old people and such) and windows won't be as dominating, and the successful companies will make stuff for both os's

primaltheory wrote:

eepberries wrote:

Denz wrote:That should be against the law, they should support their product at least 5 years after the purchase date. You can't just stop supporting your software on the hopes of the customer buying your new product because of it. I think the FCC should get involved here. You think?

Why is there any reason it should be illegal? I mean, I agree that it's lame, but I really don't see why it should be illegal. Take video games for example. Some companies just release the game and then that's it. They move onto their next project. They might have one or two updates to fix a couple problems, but besides that, they're done with it. I don't see why Microsoft doing this would be any worse

nobody likes those games anyway...If they keep this up, they will slowly loose more people to linux...

I say by 2010 we will have easy to use guis for linux (like easy for old people and such) and windows won't be as dominating, and the successful companies will make stuff for both os's

Linux is stupid. People should face the fact that Linux just isn't for end users. I don't think Linux will ever replace Windows when it comes to the end user market. If anything does, it won't be Linux. Get over it

bitWISE wrote:I wasn't aware that Home and Pro required seperate patches.

They don't.

seremtan wrote:so what's so great about vista anyway?

Read up on it. Its not built on the XP codebase, its built on the 2003 Server SP1 codebase. Then they've added a lot more security and stability under the hood and some useful new features on the front end.

Humm, i should give vista another go, i was running both RC1 and RC2, and hot damn, lets talk about Crash's!

I ran XP from alpha 1 I think and it was instable as fook, but it improved with every release and I got to know the OS pretty well due to it
XP hasnt crashed on me since years btw (y)

eepberries wrote:

Denz wrote:That should be against the law, they should support their product at least 5 years after the purchase date. You can't just stop supporting your software on the hopes of the customer buying your new product because of it. I think the FCC should get involved here. You think?

Why is there any reason it should be illegal? I mean, I agree that it's lame, but I really don't see why it should be illegal. Take video games for example. Some companies just release the game and then that's it. They move onto their next project. They might have one or two updates to fix a couple problems, but besides that, they're done with it. I don't see why Microsoft doing this would be any worse

When there are security issues to address with their OS then they should keep addressing them so people are safe to use their product, not just discontinue updating the product because they have a better product on the market. Lets look on how many computers I have just in my office (6) each of which has a legal copy of XP, at $300 a piece that is too much cash to be doling out every couple of years. When Vista comes out then I have to be forced to buy 6 more copies? (or a version that will put Vista on all of my computers legaly - which may cost more) my point is that people who bought XP should at least keep it 5 years after their purchase, not 2.