Dell To Offer Win XP On Consumer PCs Again

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."

Comments

Well Duh

[zoomshorts]

Who wants Vista?

So what does this mean, Vista is a failure?

[benzapp]

Long live Windows XP

Re:So what does this mean, Vista is a failure?

[badc0ffee]

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!

Wow

[geekoid]

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

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

Re:Wow

[walterbyrd]

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

Re:Wow

[Adambomb]

tsk tsk,
dont forget! hate leads to suffering!

Re:Wow

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Does it hurt Microsoft financially...

[Orig_Club_Soda]

...whether we buy VIsta or XP?

Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially...

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Does it hurt Microsoft financially...

[nine-times]

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.

Investor Confidence

[SuperKendall]

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.

Dell vs. Microsoft

[TheMeuge]

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.

Re:Dell vs. Microsoft

[CelticWhisper]

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.

Re:Dell vs. Microsoft

[Captain Splendid]

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.

Re:Dell vs. Microsoft

[chris_mahan]

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).

Re:Dumb People

[roman_mir]

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.

It has become clear

[michaelmalak]

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.

Re:Dumb People

[jhfry]

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.

All hardware vendors have the same problem

[TristanGrimaux]

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!"

Re:You're forgetting...

[MrCrassic]

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