Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dell To Offer Win XP On Consumer PCs Again

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the that's-a-ringing-endorsement-right-there dept.

phalse phace writes "With so many consumers still asking for Windows XP to be loaded on Dell's consumer level PCs, the PC maker has finally decided to offer that as an option. 'Like most computer makers, Dell switched nearly entirely to Vista-based systems following Microsoft's mainstream launch of the operating system in January. However, the company said its customers have been asking for XP as part of its IdeaStorm project, which asks customers to help the company come up with product ideas. Starting immediately, Dell said, it is adding XP Home and Professional as options on four Inspiron laptop models and two Dimension desktops.' The Dell models with the Windows XP option are: Dell Inspiron 1405, 1705, 1505, and 1501; and Dell Dimension E520 and E521."

42 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. Well Duh by zoomshorts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who wants Vista?

    1. Re:Well Duh by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Question:

      WHY THE HELL ARE YOU RUNNING IT IF IT CHUGS?

      I thought that was a blatantly obvious question to ask. :)

  2. So what does this mean, Vista is a failure? by benzapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Long live Windows XP

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
    1. Re:So what does this mean, Vista is a failure? by badc0ffee · · Score: 3, Insightful
      My daugter does support for some very rich and famous people. One of her best customers bought a new, top of the line, DELL for use with the stock market. This customer is very serious about making money, and had a T1 line installed. The DELL came with Vista, but the proprietary main application would not install or run, making the new machine and T1 line totally useless.

      My daughter to the rescue, buy a copy of XP and install. But, no drivers for the RAID array for XP that she could find. I got involved walking her through disabling RAID in the BIOS. XP installed, application up and running, profit for the customer.

      The customer should have had the option to get ANY OS with the machine from DELL.

      Vista is a failure for the same reason OS/2 was a failure... APPLICATIONS!

      --
      1011 1010 1101 1100 0000 1111 1111 1110 1110
  3. Wow by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this means the hating of Vista is stronger then the hating of previos OSs.

    Good, Maybe MS will take a hint....

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Wow by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This also means the hating of Vista is stronger then msft's influence over dell. You know that msft must hate this.

    2. Re:Wow by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      tsk tsk,
      dont forget! hate leads to suffering!

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    3. Re:Wow by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MS could take your advice and keep building on XP, but they would charge, just like APple charges for the next "version" of their OS. Essentially, SP2 should have cost 150 dollars, but it was free. I seriously doubt windows users want MS to act like Apple.

          A clean-ish break from XP is actually a good idea, but the implementation didnt go off so great. I wouldnt be surprised if by the time Vista hits SP1 it will have some love come its way, the same way XP did, which from what I remember on these boards was "just a new 2000 skin, dont buy it" "ripoff" "conspiracy to blah blah" "raw ports will destroy the net" "home version wont join a domain, run!!" "system restore didnt work in ME so it wont work in XP" "WMP and DRM!" etc.

    4. Re:Wow by paganizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was trying to do the list with an even emphasis on Usability and stability; Win95, especially OSR2, was great, but it still had a lot of issues with 32-bit software, and is just really a pain when it comes down to modern gaming. You can run a Office as new as OfficeXP on it, but you are going to get BSoD's, and hung process errors, no way around it.
      Win98 had a lot of the same problems, but Win98SE is still damn functional; USB support out of the box, Great DOS support, good 32-bit coverage, and pretty much anything will run on it. I still use it as a dual-boot on just about every system I have.
      NT... well, my first cert was nt 3.51, my MCSE was originally for NT 4. for a workstation, on known hardware, I think NT 4 workstation is just about ideal; small footprint, stable, powerful. But it is prone to driver issues, and the threading could cause a lot of BSoD situations. having to re-install the service packs every time you made a minor change was annoying, also.
      I've just recently started not hating XP pro; I was lumping it in with XP home, and XP home is just so flipping useless as to rival WinME, in my experience; The problem wasn't just that it was a buggy, bloated shell on top of Win2k, and of course the phone-home and DRM, but the applications that came with it; Every single thing that shipped with XP home as a value added feature was worthless in comparison to the open source / freeware applications available.
      So you have people thinking that their WinXP home with windows firewall, phoning home like a good little spy to microsoft, was their operating system and acting in their best interest, looking out for them. Win2k didn't have any crap like that, so you were forced to download something, and maybe even learn a little bit about how to protect yourself. Tiny Personal Firewall versus Windows Firewall is no contest.
      Ok, rambling now.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    5. Re:Wow by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're wrong here: as hateful as XP was, it was a relief compared to such gems as Windows 98 or ME

      Have you tried Windows 98 recently? You'll be surprised how snappy it is on a Celeron 300MHz, much faster than XP on 3GHz machine.

      I remember people boo-ed at XP's system requirements for a long time when it came out. It was Vista all over again. Learn from your past, and best of all, don't forget it.

      Windows 98 was a nice OS for its time, XP was a nice OS for its time, and Vista may be a nice OS for it's (still coming up) time. They were all hated when introduced because: a) it's a change, people hate change b) software needs time to catch up c) hardware needs time to catch up d) microsoft needs to do some patching to get the initial flaws out

  4. Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...whether we buy VIsta or XP?

    1. Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MS has a massive dev cost to recoup for Vista. If nobody buys Vista then that's a failure to make back the money they spent.

    2. Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While true at face value, the purchases today are probably mostly from people who would buy the PC with Vista or XP. Either way they're buying a Windows license, so assuming the OEM price is the same, it financially makes no difference to Microsoft.

      If anything people were not buying a PC because it would only come with Vista. Which means no sale at all for Microsoft. So Microsoft overall makes more money by at least selling another copy of XP.

      Of course there are secondary costs, like lower sales figures for their "flagship product", which could keep their stock price stagnant. But that's another story.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    3. Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, as a company, giving them $100 is giving them $100 (or $20, or whatever, I don't know exactly how much they get per copy from Dell).

      However, if they spend a billion dollars developing Windows Vista, and then they only sell $800M worth of Vista-related crap, because everyone else is still buying XP (because Vista sucks that badly), then they've effectively 'lost' $200M on Vista, because it didn't generate as much in profit as it took to develop. It's not lost in the same sense of the money you blew on blackjack in Vegas is 'lost,' but it shows that Vista was a very, very bad investment, and it'll probably make them not meet their projections to their investors.

      It doesn't really hurt them as much as make them look like a bunch of idiots.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the large scale, yeah, it doesn't matter if people buy XP or Vista right? The same number of dollars still float into Microsoft.

      But look at it this way: Vista will have been a total flop if this occurs, and the books at Redmond will be looking VERY VERY red for this project. Considering Windows is one of MS's supposed guaranteed cash cows, this is going to be absolute hell on investor confidence, and stock is going to tumble. *That* then becomes the real financial loss for MS.

    5. Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a very good question, and in spite of all the theories people will throw around, I'm not sure Microsoft even knows the answer.

      On the one hand, they're still getting paid. On the other hand, I assume they're getting paid less for the copy of XP (but who knows?).

      They could, theoretically, end up getting paid more if they can convince people to upgrade a year from now (XP OEM license + Vista retail license > Vista OEM license). However, most users do not upgrade their OS, and the lack of Vista adoption shows that people might be looking elsewhere for their "next generation" OS. Most likely this is good news for Apple, but also it might mean an increased market share for Linux. People are always looking for new things, and if IT departments don't like where Microsoft is going, it could mean they'll start looking at Linux as a way to upgrade existing computers (without the hefty system requirements).

      Plus, Microsoft has been trying to wrap products together in various ways. For example, Windows Update gives me errors in Vista if I try to use Office 2003, but not Office 2007. Call me paranoid, but at this point I would believe that this isn't entirely coincidental. Also, Office 2007 wants me to install Microsoft's desktop search, which also pushes me towards their "Live" services. They spent a lot of time on Vista making its DRM better so they could collect more licenses on Windows Media formats. Microsoft has been so successful in the past due to this sort of approach-- buying one thing means trouble unless you buy in to their other products. So even if they aren't missing much money in Vista, they might be losing money on things they hoped to push on customers using Vista as the vehicle.

      Either way, I'm sure it's embarrassing for Microsoft. They spent years working on an upgrade to their flagshit* product, and no one seems to want it. That's not a financial hurt, but I'm sure it hurts.

      * it's a typo, but I'm leaving it.

    6. Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by Scott7477 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This does come close to the camel's-back-breaker, though. For every PC that customers buy new now with XP, that pushes off the purchase of one copy of Vista four to five years into the future. That worsens the return on the cash M$ invested in producing Vista by a certain amount. I have a hunch that in three years if one had access to M$'s financial data on Vista that an analysis would show it to be a financial loss on a discounted cash flow basis.

      As you say, the only rationale for Vista has been that M$ needed a new version to maintain cash flow from its operating system division. They still get the cash from XP so they aren't hurt too badly from a pure cash flow point of view.

      If Bill Gates didn't have a controlling amount of shares in the company, Microsoft would have been taken over and undergone major restructuring by now. They take the cash from the Office franchise and to an extent the OS franchise and hose it away on acquisitions of businesses they know nothing about(like ERP) or building businesses that they'll never recover their investment in(XBox series).

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    7. Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially... by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't really hurt them as much as make them look like a bunch of idiots.

      Oh, I'd expect damage-control to kick in.

      Expect to see "each copy of XP is sold with a limited Vista license" type of ploy; then Microsoft can still claim to be selling record numbers of Vista licenses and leave it implied that they're actually for Vista instead of XP.
      Save for delayed return on R&D costs on Vista, this still doesn't really hurt Microsoft.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
  5. Investor Confidence by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Traditionally each new Microsoft OS has had a certain percentane of gauranteed sales due to computer makers switching. Having fewer copies of Vista sell means Investors could get skittish about the long term and not value the company as highly.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. Dell Microsoft? by 15973 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's hope Microsoft does the same thing next year when people are still clamoring for XP...

  7. Dell vs. Microsoft by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This raises an important question - who's more important to whom?

    1. Is Windows essential to Dell's business model of building and selling PCs?
    2. Is Dell essential to Microsoft's business model of establishing a monopoly and locking in customers?

    In an ideal world, it's obvious that #2 would be more true than #1, given the huge percentage of the PC market that Dell occupies. However, customers still demand Windows, and while Microsoft has the power to raise the wholesale prices for Dell, and render the latter unable to compete in the low-margin world of hardware sales, Dell is still quite dependent on directives from Redmond.

    This latest trend just serves to underline the inherent instability in this partnership. In this context, it is not surprising that Dell is looking into Linux, since proliferation of the latter will benefit Dell in that it will limit the extent to which Dell depends on Microsoft in the long run; in the short run it'll give Dell more bargaining power with regards to wholesale Windows price negotiations.

    1. Re:Dell vs. Microsoft by CelticWhisper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm inclined to say that Dell is more important to Microsoft than Microsoft is to Dell.

      Remember that PC hardware stands on its own and free operating systems exist to drive it. However, Windows does not stand on its own and requires hardware to run.

      Add to that the fact that many, many people do not distinguish between the OS and the PC (or even the "computer" and the "hard drive" for that matter, but I digress) and they'll blame problems with --anything-- to do with their PC squarely on Dell, and you have a culture that strongly associates the OEM with everything computer-related.

      When you have the company with the greater amount of mindshare also creating the components that are more flexible (versus the OS which, as previously mentioned, requires hardware) you have a situation in favor of the OEM telling the software company what for.

      Simply put, it only takes a few commercials from Dell about "the power of open source" to get people doubting Microsoft.

      YMMV, of course, and this is just my experience dealing with the public for 7 years working in a library. Thank Cthulhu that's over.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    2. Re:Dell vs. Microsoft by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Brand recognition will save us!

      Actually, I think it could, they just have to get their timing right, have a decent distro or 2, and a little cash in the bank to weather the storm. If done right, it would put them in a great position before the inevitable meltdown happens.

      Think about it from dell's point of view: Would you rather lose some money and market share while helping stake a solid and tenable future position, or watch your supplier (MS) drive everybody to the competition (Apple)? Dell might not make as much profit with a PC loaded with Ubuntu rather than Windows (at least int he short term), but they make no money if the customer buys a Mac.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Dell vs. Microsoft by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand where you come from... This assumes that there will be a meltdown. What PC manufacturer will bet on that?

      The best thing that Dell could do, is take a distribution, customize it slightly so that support would be easy....

      The only problem would remain games, they would have to sell these machines with a disclaimer "this machines will not run most games". I'm not talking about CounterStrike but about Online Poker and Barbie Adventure... Do not forget that most games will run on low-end hardware. The will run intolerably slow, but people will blame that on their computer. If it won't run at all, they will blame it on Dell.

    4. Re:Dell vs. Microsoft by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have this amazing realization when they see their computer running 1 month straight with Linux and Mac: Windows was a piece of crap, and it is not normal to have to reboot more than a 1-2 times a year. By that point, they are ready to blame everything on Windows, not the PC manufacturer.

      As far as games: They follow the money.

      The problem with games and Linux is that if a game runs in linux, it can be trivially copied to another machine (blame the geeks) so copy protection and all that does not work at all. Running as a service also is not so hot. See valve's latest troubles.

      Ultimately, the Personal Computer (PC) is not a gaming machine to most people. It's a tool to Get Shit Done (term paper, email, research, or work-for-hire), and those people are Dell's bread and butter.

      I suggest that Dell is going to put together a Ubuntu-ready line of desktops and laptops, price them aggressively, and cause the Microsoft meltdown. Remember: The best way to predict the future is to invent it. (Alan Kay)

      I am not saying they will be successful, but I can guarantee Michael is thinking real hard on how to make it work. By August 1st 2007 is my guess, but maybe sooner (no later than that for sure).

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  8. Dumb People by astrosmash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's perfectly fine to not want to be an early Vista adopter. But, regardless of one's opinion of Vista's features or initial quality, spending money on old WinXP at this point is like throwing your money away.

    Vista is without a doubt the future of the Windows platform; if you don't want to partake just yet, hold off buying a new machine altogether. Demanding a new machine with WinXP is just irrational.

    --
    ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    1. Re:Dumb People by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, unlike this post, the post of the parent is actually a troll. Haven't you heard an expression: customer is always right?

      It does not matter whether XP is older than Vista. There are plenty of products on the market that are newer and at the same time much worse than the products that preceeded them and the customer is correct to try and get an older better product than to buy into the 'newer must be better' crap.

      XP works for many people, and apparently it works for so many people that Dell had to change its way, this does not imply that people are dumb for choosing an older OS, it implies that XP is a superiour product.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    2. Re:Dumb People by astrosmash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, I'm no Microsoft shill. I gave up on the platform two years ago.

      What I'm suggesting is that spending money for a license to use obsolete software is a bad move. Even if there are growing pains with Vista, it's incredibly naive to think those issues won't be sorted out within a few months. On the other hand, Windows XP is going to be looking very obsolete and dated within the year.

      --
      ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    3. Re:Dumb People by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obsolete and dated to whom... software is ONLY obsolete when it can no longer support the mission... and it's only dated when the user craves something new.

      I haven't met anyone who has even remotely suggested that Vista was something to crave... especially in the business realm.

      Sure if your a gamer, and can foresee that all the new games will be DX10... Vista is a better bet. If your a business and have a hundred XP machines, putting your new secretary on a Vista box is just a pain to manage . And updating the entire network is out cuz the hardware won't support it.

      Right now... Vista is a LOSING proposition for businesses... and not really that appealing for general purpose users. The only market I can say would be stupid for not going with Vista is the gamer market, and only for the reasons you hinted at... eventually it may be needed.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    4. Re:Dumb People by vimh42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree completely. Choosing XP over Vista is not throwing your money away, nor is it irrational. Quite the opposite. If XP works well for you, and Vista does not, choosing Vista would be throwing your money away. People just want the choice of what they see as the better operating system.

      Double the future? How so? Because it's newer? Based on everything I've seen and everything I've read, Vistas future isn't looking all that bright. It's going to take years before the kinks are really worked out. Why would I hold off on puchasing a new computer when XP is usuable now and will be for years to come.

    5. Re:Dumb People by doublefrost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      XP will be around and supported for at least 5 more years. I'm curious, what makes you think Vista's issues will be sorted out within a few months? I wouldn't even consider Vista for another year or so.

    6. Re:Dumb People by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, I'm no Microsoft shill. I gave up on the platform two years ago. - I didn't say you were a shill, I said you were a troll for saying that anyone paying for an older product is dumb. Plenty of older products are worth the money paid for them.

      What I'm suggesting is that spending money for a license to use obsolete software is a bad move. - you are saying XP is obsolete as if saying it makes it so. I have a machine with XP at home and this is what I have on a station at work, I don't see them as obsolete. I am not protecting MS or Windows in general, I am comparing an older product with all the patches and fixes to a newer product with DRM limitations on a that is unheard of previously.

      Even if there are growing pains with Vista, it's incredibly naive to think those issues won't be sorted out within a few months. - Please, explain to us how the built in DRM will be sorted out in a few months?

      On the other hand, Windows XP is going to be looking very obsolete and dated within the year. - to whome and for what purpose? You are saying people are dumb for choosing to pay for a more or less stable OS with no DRM rather than paying for an OS crippled by design. I don't see how this is dumb, please elaborate.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  9. This could be a nice start by phulegart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Indeed, as was posted already, it would be nice if Dell just offered the option of several Operating Systems for every computer purchased. Sure, it would drive Microsoft crazy as they want everyone to switch over to their new OS, and thus dump their old computers for ones that will run Vista, but if a company like Dell has the ability to provide what it's customers demand, why shouldn't they?

    From what I've seen from Vista (specifically an install of Vista on a Sony Viao that refused to run the DVD authoring software because the Sony's video wasn't up to snuff), I am not impressed by it. Furthermore, when has Microsoft released an OS that did not need a major overhaul (other than Win2k) soon after it's release?

    There is far too much media hype over Vista, this early in it's release. I can't wait until the equivalent of an SP2 to come out for Vista, so I can chuckle like a maniac. I just wish Dell would expand their offer to all their products.

    --
    "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
  10. It has become clear by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's become clear that IdeaStorm isn't about soliciting ideas from users -- it's about using the web to publicly humiliate Microsoft into letting Dell sell to its customers what Dell already knows they want. It should be called PassiveAggressiveStorm.

  11. Dell threatened to load Linux by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so MS had to relent and keep XP going...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  12. Re:anecdotal evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm sure that Dell has probably noticed exactly the sort of activity you describe -- if they monitor their driver downloads section, I'm sure they can tell that an awful lot of computer models that ship with Vista by default have had XP drivers downloaded.

  13. All hardware vendors have the same problem by TristanGrimaux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many computers that hardware vendors offers today are under the recommendations to run Vista and yet, they come with Vista.

    So, you buy a new computer with Vista, and your old computer with XP is faster. You call your vendor and you ask him to explain. The help-desks can testify: the user satisfaction is low and they tend to blame the vendor. So the assistant tells you that you should add more memory to your computer... you have 512Mb? You should have 1Gb, or maybe 2! And then, only then, your Vista may run at the same speed in a brand new computer!

    This is hurting everybody's business, and Microsoft asks vendors for patience: "when the modest computer raise to an Intel Core 2 Duo with 2Gb nobody will remember these days... but until then you have to stand by me!"

    --
    Donde Ser Geek No Duele
  14. Re:PROFIT!!! by Stormx2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This whole thing just reaks of New Coke

  15. Wrong, wrong and...wrong by msimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love Linux *and* MS basing (fun restarting servers on production every-time MS rolls out a patch). But while Vista may be top heavy, I don't think you do any thing any good by making it out to be worse then it is. There are plenty of good reasons not to jump on Vista, that just doesn't happen to be one of them.

    Likewise, we may be ready for Linux everywhere, but a LOT of people wouldn't be. You think Vista is giving people reason to complain? Try being thrust onto Linux unwittingly. Try having to explain to that person why they should be happy with it. (:

    Anyway, lets just say top-end hardware can still run Vista fast.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  16. Why Buy XP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But I thought, why buy an OS that's going out, when there's a new one coming in.....

    Because the one that's on it's way out will work for you _RIGHT NOW_ and still have at least two or three years of useful service life left, whereas the new one coming in still doesn't work correctly yet and will be at least a year... maybe two before the service packs, patches and drivers will become available to make the new one stable and fully usable

  17. Re:You're forgetting... by MrCrassic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That was Microsoft's ideology with the Zune, and everyone knows what happened there...

  18. Re:You're forgetting... by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Zune had all the makings of a great music player. Hardware-wise, it has more than the iPod. Its just that Microsoft went out of their way to cripple it with heavy DRM and therefore make it a useless piece of shit. They could have had a great iPod competitor, if only they wanted to.