I Much agree vista's failure could of been Pressured easily.
It would of been alot better to of Kept XP In vista's place like most people did and waited longer for windows 7, being a complete success as it is now.
Oh and another thing, Windows XP Professional editions can handle Multicore processing up to 2 cores.
So XP Professional takes full advantage of Dual core systems, thus still making it very good for businesses. Not to mention it is very easily to modify XP (Like really easy) to look like windows 7, or just simply replace the task bar.
A lot of 7's successes were due to the fact it had stuck to the NT 6.x series and not jumped to an NT7. If Windows 7 had actually been NT7.0, Windows 7 would have had A LOT of the same issues that Vista was plagued with upon release.
So I think if Microsoft had not released Vista and waited, although it would had given Software devs and hardware manufacturers more time, I think overall it would have still ended up with a lot of compatibility and stability issues Vista was plagued with anyway, mainly due to the fact a major Kernel version jump isn't pretty. Hell, the transition from 98/ME to XP for a lot of people was very very bumpy due to the move from a DOS base to an NT base. And in a lot of cases, a lot bumpier on first release than the Vista release was. However most businesses had a much easier transition than most consumers due to already being on Windows 2000, which was NT 5.0, vs. XP being NT 5.1.
Plus, if I have a 64-bit CPU and 4GB of RAM, there is no way in hell I'm touching XP 64-bit. :P Vista 64-bit was a much much better release than XP 64-bit, thats for sure.
I would of upheald Windows XP Professional Editions SP2/SP3 ONLY Till 2012
As they are dual-core capable.
It's out dated in terms of several technologies, most notably to me is the Graphics handling, DX9.0C while still widely supported, is very outdated and loosing it fast to 10 and 11
Wow...... you really need to do a bit more research.
XP is NT 5.1, Vista and 7 are NT 6.x, so Vista and 7 aren't just "copies" of XP. NT 6 has very many structural changes to the core.
Not to mention the versions of Windows on the NT 6.x series actually have, well, good 64-bit releases. XP 64-bit is just.... junk. And with 4GB+ of RAM, you want a good 64-bit OS. :P
also XP is a copy of windows 2000 as it is part of the NT5.x kernel versions... windows vista and 7 are based off windows server 2003 (NT5.2) not xp...
or you could say that every version of windows is a copy of the one before and so on and so forth. its only when a radicaly diferent version (win 3x, win95, win vista) that has changed theey way you use windows you can say that they havent copied from the previous version.
thats just my 2 cents
on older machines that can't handle or don't have drivers for the NT 6.x series, yes.
But on newer machines, no. Schools that put XP on brand new machines are just taking away power from the machine, as XP can't really take full advantage of newer hardware like Vista and 7 can. Mostly in the processor department, but still, even newer GPUs, and HDDs that take advantage of 4K sectors can't be taken full advantage of by XP.