Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Allow PC Makers to Downgrade to XP
mytrip pointed out a News.com story about a new Microsoft program to allow PC makers to downgrade from Vista to XP if they so choose. They're still pushing the new version of Windows very hard, but the option now exists for PC resellers to offer the now venerable OS. This is especially interesting as the article points out that OEM licenses for XP officially run out at the end of January. "Hewlett-Packard also started a program in August for many of its business models. 'For business desktops, workstations and select business notebooks and tablet PCs, customers can configure their systems to include the XP Pro restore disc for little or no charge,' HP spokeswoman Tiffany Smith said in an e-mail. She said it was too soon to gauge how high customer interest has been. 'Since we've only been offering (it) for about a month, we don't really have anything to share on demand.' A Microsoft representative confirmed there were some changes made over the summer to the options computer makers have with respect to XP, but the representative was not immediately able to elaborate on those changes."
I understand the plight. After setting up Vista for the first time the other night I could not believe the amount of GUI changes in Vista. Especially when it came up on a cable modem PPPoE. Took me an hour to figure it out, it though we had a DSL dial up. Don't look for properties any more in the OS, they are now calling it "Settings" and is where the help used to be on many screens.
People would have less learning UI if they loaded Fedora 7 or RHat.
Sure glad I bought my last PC when I did. Still had XP on it with a promise of a free upgrade. Have the new disks. Just never applied the upgrade. Will not be applying any time soon either.
I need to buy a new system (current motherboard got damaged, might as well upgrade), and I've been weighing my options. Vista is simply not an option at all. XP Pro 64-bit is orphaned, with virtually nonexistent driver support. XP is 32-bit, and I already was running Win2k with 4GB of RAM (well, as much as it will use of that) and need to grow.
After all these years of Windows desktop and Linux here & there on servers and VMs, I'm going to finally make the jump the Linux desktop, VMWare'ing Windows where I need it. I don't play PC games anymore (besides minesweeper), I'm going to get a quad CPU with 8GB of RAM, and Microsoft simply isn't offering anything viable for that configuration.
You are talking about the warm fuzzy feeling of words like 'Trusted Computing'?
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
I waited an extra month or two to purchase my new Dell XPS M2010 just to get Vista since it was on the horizon and as far as I could tell all my hardware/software worked for the most part or new drivers were already in beta for one of my Epson printers. I would have not waited six months for Vista, nor do I have any plans to go out and purchase it for any of my other machines, but I can't say I'm unhappy that I waited a month to get it on my new-ish system. The Vista Media Center is EXCELLENT and in my opinion is unmatched by any other software or dedicated box. Microsoft could dominate the PVR market if they released a Zune TV device that basically booted straight into WMC without the Windows UI anywhere to be seen. Let me sync recorded shows to a Zune 2.0 device and Apple's hold on the handheld media device market would begin to wane. Some of the adjustments to Explorer and the Start menu are nice and improve the usefulness of both a little bit. My biggest problems with Vista aren't Microsoft's doing, they are the third party developers who dragged their feet even knowing full well that Vista was coming out and they knew what they had to do to make their software compatible. There really is little Microsoft can do to get developers to use user accounts properly (which have been a apart of NT from the start, Vista is the first time Microsoft has enforced their use). I really don't see the need for anyone other than corporate customers to downgrade to XP.
This just goes to show you that Joe Consumer out there will use whatever he is comfortable with. I know several non-technically-inclined people who took advantage of an "OS version revision (not a downgrade necessarily)" to XP just because they don't like how slow their new computers were running and they didn't like the San Quintenesque security of Vista.
I also know several people who still use Windows 98 on their home machines just because they like it. Sure they can't get new Windows Updates and finding new software is damn near impossible but they like it.
On the other hand, I do know a handful of people who like Vista and actually prefer it over XP. Not for the security, but for the "WOW". Of course their systems are superlative in every respect to performance.
This "use what you like" thing may be why Mac OSs do so well. I mean, what really has changed from UI, performance and security perspectives that can be easily seen since OS 10.0?
Change is a bitch. I know. I know. Get off my lawn.
The game.
Take a look at Mac OS X. The interface is pretty much the same for more than ten years.
THAT, plus the BSD underpinnings, is what made me finally take the [pricey] Apple plunge.
Apple, and the beautifully designed OS X, let me DO WHAT I WANT with the computer. And this is neglecting to mention AppleCare, a decent insurance policy for the hardware if I've ever seen one, which has already paid for itself after one fizzled iBook motherboard.
MS products OTOH, and I'm not a rabid MS-hater for all concerned, just do not get it -- Vista only allows you to do what MS thinks is best. Can someone please explain to me why that is considered an upgrade?
Sorry Microsoft. Since I have professional sway, and strongly advise my family and friends on which hardware to buy, you're just SOL.
It's good for Microsoft because people spent the money on business or ultimate then in April 2009 support runs out. The person will either need to change to Vista for support or pay for additional support.
I will most likely not buy Vista, even though I am not a Linux-only bod. Economics and (some) respect for the law play pretty big roles in my choice of OS.
Last evening, I met with the IT chief of a large transnational bank, for whom we develop Enterprise code. I asked him about what software platforms are envisaged in the long run, and the process behind evaluation. He said, "Basically we have a Red-Amber-Green colour scheme for software."
.Net; I was surprised to learn that Visual Studio as a whole is 'Amber'! SuSE and RedHat Linux are both green, so is PHP, RubyonRails, Eclipse, Websphere etc. Interestingly, he said the IT staff of several banks get together and discuss matters affecting common issues like this.
Under this scheme, Vista is Red, so is IE7, ActiveX controls, Visual Basic and Visual Basic
So I guess it's the OEMs who are FORCED TO OFFER XP and XP-compatible hardware, drivers and support to their biggest customers. This isn't some gift of charity from His Billness or the new acting Chair-man from Microsoft. Nobody sane would like to willingly downgrade to Vista - simple as that.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
(I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in to the conversation that got that concession out of M$.) This is just M$ offering the same thing to other vendors, who are probably losing a lot of business to people who want XP and can only get it from Dell.
:(
Me too
You know, many experts predicted people will skip Vista and go for the next Windows (if for any at all). And those aren't the kinda experts which damn the latest Windows version each time as a sport.
I'm a Microsoft fanboy, but I also feel my stomach turning upside down seeing what they did with Vista as a whole.
And the fact this happened means people actively reject Vista en masse, for Microsoft this means they will have to do big time correction on their Vista projected sales (which included all previously guaranteed OEM sales). One more step into confirming this "people will skip Vista" theory.
OOh, I figured out how to burn bootable dvd and cd iso's without any 3rd party programs.
Seriously, I just consider it another incremental upgrade. I haven't touched B itlocker and the "Ultimate" apps are vaporware. Its not such a bad OS. Bill Gates scared away all the corporate customers with the "Wow factor" crap. He should have just concentrated on useful new features like the ability to get a commmand window at any folder. IIS people might have some interest in things like that.
And I have not had any problems running Office 2003 and other MS apps that don't require drivers. In fact today, I just got service pack 3 for Office 2003.
So is it with some folks who, when MS releases PR memos about vaporware, fix their vision on this "future" OS, freezing themselves out of any current improvements. Just what MS wants.
I like your analog, but I think the reaction you see is more likely because people prefer to stick to XP until something better than XP and Vista comes along (hopefully 7).
The only thing that could impress those people, would be faster release of XP SP3, since the sheer amount of patches required after reinstall is incredible.
I'm in that crowd, and while I'm watching how they go with Vista SP1, I have to say I've pretty much given up on this OS release as a whole.
Windows 7 will be the product that decides the future of Microsoft. They simply can't afford two crappy releases in a row.
The article states that MS will no longer issue licenses for XP after 2009. If I download a copy of Win XP, will MS be able to claim lost income (since they refuse to sell XP)?
And should a software company be able to shut down free distribution (bittorrent, etc) of an older, but extremely popular OS, that they don't want to sell anymore?
It is really weird. There is an assumption these days that we've all 'upgraded' to XP. I honestly don't feel like a lame luddite for getting all my Windows needs fulfilled on a W2K box here at home. I use it for video editing, embedded software development, various multimedia tasks, etc. I finally have had to run XP at work, but there's essentially nothing about it to compel me to 'upgrade' at home. The few commercial packages I might be interested in 'upgrading' seem to incorporate the new Microsoft 'phone home to register' features that I have zero interest in involving myself with in the first place.
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Quote: "... I also feel my stomach turning upside down seeing what they did with Vista as a whole."
As others have suggested, maybe it is better to skip Vista completely, the non-drug method of curing stomach upset.
Dr. Death has arrived. After only 3 years, requiem for an OS: Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death, ready to kill software prematurely that customers want to use. He has decided that Windows XP will die soon: January 31, 2008.
The huge number of bugs in Windows XP before SP2 was very expensive for us. If I remember correctly, Windows XP SP2 fixed more than 630 bugs, and some of the fixes were not documented. The really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after SP2 was released, on August 25, 2004. That means we have gotten only 3 years of good use from Windows XP.
Rule number one in dealing with Microsoft: Unless forced by circumstances, never move to a new version of Windows until the second service pack is released. Let other people have the grief.
(Someone said that rule will just cause Microsoft to release service packs much more often. If that happens, it may be necessary to change the rule to "until the X service pack...")
It has been 3 years since WinXP Service Pack 2 was released, even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, a difficult problem when there is no internet connection or only a dial-up connection. The Windows XP updates of just August's Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes. Microsoft seems to have delayed releasing an SP3 for Windows XP to try to discourage people from using Windows XP.
New versions of Linux are released to make a better OS. New versions of Microsoft Windows seem to have the purpose of 1) killing the old version and 2) using more CPU power so that it is necessary to buy new hardware. When you partner with Microsoft, you partner with a company that may sometimes choose to be your enemy, in my opinion.
It is not only the vulnerabilities that are expensive. Microsoft's adversarial behavior is expensive, too.
As opposed to how many in the past?
One: ME. But ME was the best time to release a crappy Windows, if I could so say.
The prosumers and professionals have moved to Windows 2000 which was a great OS, plenty of people kept their Windows 98 which also performed very adequately for the hardware and software we used at those times.
ME was a blunder, but there was 98 and 2000 to make it subtle and make it easy for Microsoft to swipe it under the rug and forget about it.
With Vista it's completely different story. Vista is for home users, prosumers and professionals. It has been released after building incredible hype for over 5 years in development.
Professionals have nothing to migrate to (no 2000 analog) and consumers feel cosy with their XP, but Microsoft was killing XP OEM prematurely.
Basically they have screwed big time, and they knew it from the very start but hoped marketing and ignorance will buy them some time.
Do you remember the grand plans Microsoft had for marketing Vista? It was supposed to outdo the Windows 95 campaign in cost, visibility and impressiveness.
But Microsoft just did a so-so release event and went quiet. They knew they had a turd and opted to save their money for Windows 7's campaign.
I purchased a Dell for a customer a few days after Vista was launched in Australia (Jan 31st?).
I specifically asked for XP, which they gave at the same price, but also gave an opportunity to download Vista Basic for around $47.
Now that was interesting for me, as I would of been one of the first to demand XP.
I also refused their offer of a widescreen 19" and went for a standard 19" instead.
By the way, Dell Sales still have no idea that their onboard sound chip drivers are crappy and buggy.
I dunno what MS is going to do, but the sales of XP stickered 2nd hand machines here are going to skyrocket, as those who want legal Windows OS that's NOT Vista are going to be hard pressed to find one after Jan 2008.
Here, you can get a 2nd hand Lenovo/Dell/HP on auction sites for around $200 (Intel 2.4-3.4ghz) with XP productID stickers on them. That at least is worth $150+.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Now, this probably has more to do with the drivers for my graphics card (6600GT) than the OS itself, but it is an issue which will keep me from upgrading.
I'd say they're closely related. The driver is the most direct problem, but the crazy new requirements Vista puts on drivers to make sure nobody makes fair use of any IPee is a likely reason for the new driver problems.
Fundamentally, Vista WILL steal cycles from your game to run DRM threads at a higher priority. MS has gon way out of their way to assure that the cycle stealing is non-optional.
Put another way, it will use your cycles from your CPU to actively prevent you from doing what you want with your computer. It's no wonder people want to "downgrade" to an OS that, in spite of many flaws, doesn't do that.