Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

Editor's note: This column is part of a new series, "Making It Personal", that explores our love/hate relationship with personal technology.

As the world's most prominent operating system, Windows has dominated the tech industry for well over a decade and its competitors - Mac OS X and Linux - have failed to gain the kind of penetration Microsoft has.

But ever since the days of Windows 98, we have been forced to deal with a slew of Windows issues that have plagued individuals and companies alike. Instead of being the highly intuitive operating system Mac OS X is, Windows became bloated and difficult to use. Instead of offering sound functionality and customizability like Linux, Windows became quite the opposite.

To make matters worse, malicious hackers and spammers started developing a slew of attacks that proved deadly to Windows systems. Responding too late, Microsoft has allowed the security issue to become such a concern that some have migrated to other operating systems. And who can blame them? With Microsoft doing very little to protect them, the decision seemed quite simple.

But for all of its issues, Windows XP was still a relatively reliable operating system after Service Pack 2 was released. Once installed, SP2 offered the kind of functionality and security that we had hoped for and although there were still security concerns, the operating system worked much better than any of its predecessors and finally made sense for businesses and individuals alike.

And just when XP was at its height, Microsoft decided to drop Windows Vista on us, claiming "The wow was now." Sadly, the company failed to realize that the only "wow" coming out of most people's mouths was followed by something like, "what a crappy operating system."

In essence, Vista is nothing more than a pretty OS that loses any sense of reliability and reignites that uneasy feeling I got when using XP SP1. Of course, Microsoft doesn't agree.

According to the company, Vista was designed with security, good looks and functionality in mind. Instead of being an XP clone, Vista has the fine looks of Mac OS X and the usefulness we had come to expect from its predecessor. Sadly, the marketing team must have missed the memo because I haven't experienced anything of the sort.

Let's face it - Windows Vista is junk in almost every sense of the word. Sure, it's better looking than XP and I like the Windows Aero interface, but what really matters is how well the operating system performs at the tasks we ask of it. And so far, it has failed miserably.

How many times have you used Vista only to find out that it's basically the same bloated operating system with awkward warnings and crazy dialog boxes? Vista is easily the most annoying operating system I have ever used.

Just last week, I tried to install a Microsoft software package. After going through all the rigmarole of validating my copy and making sure Microsoft knows what I'm doing is legit, the operating system's new User Access Control, which was ostensibly installed to safe guard me, asked me five times if I wanted to install the program and if I had initiated the process.

Once I got through that annoyance, I sat there and waited for the program to install and watched as my brand-new operating system on a high-end PC slowed to a crawl trying to perform a simple task. Of course, that issue isn't just found during installation; the restart times are ridiculous and the chances of getting something done in a reasonable amount of time are all but lost. Simply put, Vista is brutally slow.

And yet, none of these issues are experienced in XP. Aside from being asked once if I want to install something, XP boots up in a jiffy and works just as I had hoped it would.

But in true Microsoft fashion, the company wants to stop licensing Windows XP to OEMs by June 30. According to the company, it's time we move on from XP and join the Vista world. It makes sense from a business standpoint - Microsoft spent millions developing Vista and it wants to cash in on its investment. But what about those of us who don't want to move to the junker? What if we want to stick it out with the tried and true XP?

Even worse, after releasing XP Service Pack 3, I really don't see a reason to switch. SP3 included all of the added security benefits of owning Vista and did so without slowing the OS down or making it annoying to use. In other words, the better OS just got better.

Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and businesses that were loath to switch.

In response, the company has already started the propaganda machine for Windows 7 - Vista's follow-up - and told the world just how "special" it will be. But to me, it looks like a desperate move.

Instead of telling us how it will fix Vista and make it a worthwhile product, it's as if Microsoft wants us to believe that the operating system is a bridge to greatness and we should swallow our reservations and walk across that bridge because the pleasure will surely be worth the pain.

What a crock. Instead of wasting our time with hope for the future, Microsoft should keep XP alive until Windows 7 and allow the users to choose which software they want to use. At this point, Microsoft needs to realize that consumers want reliability and hate the thought of being forced into another crappy product. And although monetary concerns are obviously a factor for the company, just how much money will Microsoft lose if people realize how poor of an operating system Vista really is and they switch to competing platforms without ever taking a look back?

Trust me, allowing XP to stay available is good for all parties involved.