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.