Slashdot Mirror
MS Reportedly Adds 6 Months of Vista Downgrade
LiteralKa sends in a poorly sourced Reg story claiming that Microsoft has granted OEMs six more months to sell PCs using Windows Vista with the support to downgrade to Windows XP. OEMs can now offer such arrangements until July 31, 2009 — the previous deadline was January 31, 2009. The article claims as source "a Reg reader" without further details. Neither Microsoft nor any OEM has confirmed the rumor, and only a few scattered bloggers have picked it up.
Critical reception of the Reg? It's about time. Good work, submitter.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Why is a poorly sourced, unconfirmed story from the Reg posted on the front page? VERY slow news day?
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
I can't decide whether The Reg is The National Enquirer or the Weekly World News of tech news sites on the Web.
Can someone help me with this? ;)
My blog
"Neither Microsoft nor any OEM has confirmed the rumor, and only a few scattered bloggers have picked it up."
Including Slashdot.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I still do not see why they are cutting off XP. If their Vista is so good than it would speak for itself and people would switch to it. Perhaps once computers have enough power to waste a few extra cycles on vista's ineffiencies it will catch on. i guess i have a problem with microsoft trying to bully people into using their newest software. If they used that time constructively I am sure they could come up with much improved products.
By july 2009 Windows XP will be 8 years old! Because they extend it till then, both Microsoft and the market agree that this 8 year old operating system is still relevant and not hopelessly outdated despite its age.
In those 8 years, Windows has hardly evolved. Honestly, Windows Vista doesn't add too much groundbreaking stuff to Windows XP, the only real technological novelty is the graphics.
Eight years is a lot in computer history, and if you look at what it was 8 years before Windows XP, that was 1993. So Windows 3.11 is to Windows XP, what Windows XP is to Windows Vista, but the difference between XP and Vista is much smaller than the difference between 3.11 and XP!
why does the evolution of desktop operating systems like Windows go slower now than a decade ago?
I have Vista Home and I like it.
I can do better than that. I pushed out 37 vista business installs about 4 months ago to all of our workstations here, and I've not had a single problem with it. The bees seems to love it and, for me, it's a heck of a lot easier to manage. I watch all this bashing going on and quite frankly, I don't get it. I understand that YMMV, but it seems like Vista is getting hammered but nobody's really tried it. I've heard a lot of "It won't run on my hardware" and "It won't run our winfax95" but c'mon...It's 2008.
You may now commence with the typical bullshit bashing...
You'll have that sometimes...
As an african american, I am outraged by your use of the deregotary word samba. We're on the verge of electing the first black president by a landslide but some people refuse to give up their racist attitudes.
I have seen the future: Windows $NEXT_VERSION Milestone $MOCKUP.
I tried it on a low-end laptop with four Core 2 Duo chips and only 8 gig of memory, and trust me: $NEXT_VERSION is shaping up to be one heck of a product.
WordPad and Paint have seen major overhauls to their user interfaces. Forget the freetards and their "distros" full of all sorts of useless shovelware like "FireFox" and "OpenOffice" and, haha, "GIMP"! - the bundled software with Windows $NEXT_VERSION is clear, simple, sparse and to-the-point. The much-loved $HATED_VERSION user interface from Office $HATED_VERSION is now part of WordPad and Paint!
I am so excited about $NEXT_VERSION of Windows. It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm. Forget about security problems, those are all fixed in $NEXT_VERSION. And they're finally ridding themselves of $ANCIENT_LEGACY_STUFF.
Also, there'll be $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM. It'll be awesome!
I wonder how $NEXT_VERSION will compare to $NEXT_NEXT_VERSION.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Well- this is Slashdot, so...
Look at how much Linux desktops have evolved over the last 8 years. Actually- just over the last four. Also- look at how Apple's OS has evolved over the same time period.
The only company that seems to be having a hard time evolving a desktop OS is Microsoft.
Just because Y is newer than X doesn't mean Y is an upgrade to X.
Whether something is an upgrade or a downgrade depends on the relative functionality, not the time difference.
Installing XP over Vista is definately an upgrade.
http://www.tothepc.com/archives/windows-xp-features-missing-in-vista/
The bees seems to love it...
Any operating system that our crop-pollinating overlords prefer is all right by me!
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I was going to write a well-written retort full of reason and fact, but I decided that it was a waste of time. Instead: *expletive* *expletive* *expletive*.
Moving on.
The people I've heard not complain about Vista use their computers as document editors and web-browsers. However, I have to remind you: my pocket watch can do this, and it costs less than a single install of Vista. To butcher an old phrase: Vista is about as useful as a tit on a bull, and about twice as ugly.
I declare your post to be silly fiction based on a lack of experience. There's nothing I did I XP that doesn't work in Vista. My Vista machine exists primarily because of gaming. My framerates using the same graphical options as in XP are the same as they were in XP, and that's normal and well documented - Vista stopped being slower for gaming long ago, and long before I was willing to install it. It also gives me access to 4 gigs of ram with zero driver problems, unlike XP64, and the general OS responsiveness is improved over XP. It about half a second to load Firefox for the first time after I boot, compared to a few seconds in XP. The same sort of improvement shows up in most apps, though Photoshop only loads at the same speed as it did on XP. Particularly nice is that Vista, while starting out (after a few days of superfetch) faster than XP, continues to extend its lead as time goes on. It seems to be immune from the general slowdown that affects so many XP installs.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I can do better than that. I pushed out 37 vista business installs about 4 months ago to all of our workstations here, and I've not had a single problem with it. The bees seems to love it and, for me, it's a heck of a lot easier to manage. I watch all this bashing going on and quite frankly, I don't get it. I understand that YMMV, but it seems like Vista is getting hammered but nobody's really tried it. I've heard a lot of "It won't run on my hardware" and "It won't run our winfax95" but c'mon...It's 2008.
I've had a very mixed experience with it myself...
I've got a tablet running Vista that probably shouldn't be. It was never designed with Vista in mind and the hardware is just barely supported. It runs, but not well. I'll likely go back to XP again with it fairly soon.
At home, I've got several machines running Vista Premium and I've had absolutely no issues with them at all. They're used extensively for gaming and the performance is just fine. No complaints.
I've also got several workstations at work that we're testing out with Vista Business and have had no trouble with so far. A few people are having issues with the GUI changes, but that's about it. They're generally as stable as XP was.
Then we've had a number of clients buying new computers and getting stuck with Vista. Their experiences generally range from bad to just plain horrible. Lots of incompatible hardware and software. Unexpected learning curves. Lots of complaining about strange issues. Repeated service calls.
I think a large part of the problem has been that this is the first major OS change that a number of people have had to deal with. Folks have been using XP for a number of years now, and everything has more or less worked the same. Now you've got folks just ordering a random computer from Dell, or picking something up at Best Buy...assuming that everything will work the way it has been...and suddenly stuff doesn't work. Their printer won't work with the new computer, their old software won't work, the buttons are all moved around.
Most of the issues I've seen are with people who didn't really expect Vista on their machine, or didn't actually research what switching to Vista would mean for them. For the folks that have intentionally upgraded to Vista it has, more or less, worked.
Which certainly doesn't make it a good OS... Or even much of an upgrade in a lot of cases... But I don't think it's as horrible as a lot of people are claiming either.
It's a Microsoft OS - anyone who expected rock-solid stability and bullet-proof security needs to have their head examined.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Do you think it makes sense to upgrade the hardware without getting any additional functionality?
Just to show a different point of view, I have recently bought a Linux eeePC-900 and am loving it. It has more or less the same capability as a typical notebook of a few years ago: 900 MHz CPU, 20 GB storage, 1 MB RAM, yet it weighs less than one kilogram. That's what I consider TRUE progress. I have the same functionality I had before, but with a big gain in portability.
If you have to upgrade your hardware just to keep the same functionality, without any significant gain, then why do it? Why not keep the same old hardware and software you had before?
No one with any sense (and who doesn't work for Microsoft) claims Vista is a "must-have" upgrade, though. It's basically a replacement for XP with a few extra bells and whistles... not worth upgrading if you have XP, but if you're building a new machine, there's no reason to avoid it.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
...is simply due to the huge tactical error Microsoft has made over Netbooks & low-powered handhelds.
XP can be slimmed down relatively easily to run quite well on these devices but there is no chance with the size of Vista.
I'm sure that there is still a big demand for XP over Vista but I also understand (with my limited reading of MS product bulletins) that Windows 7 is being designed as a scaleable OS, presumably so it can run on these smaller devices. Therefore it makes commercial sense for MS to keep XP alive for their own reasons of getting onto Netbooks until Windows 7 is ready.
So it is not just because there is a continuing demand for XP from new PC buyers.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It also gives me access to 4 gigs of ram with zero driver problems, unlike XP64, and the general OS responsiveness is improved over XP.
How did you manage to accomplish this? Vista only shows 3 and a little bit gigs of RAM, even though my BIOS sees 4. Any help would be appreciated.
Do you have Vista32 installed?
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
If you're running a 32bit system, you will max out with memory allocation at around 3.2G, you need the 64bit version to see 4G, don't you?
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Vista 32 can only see 4 gigs MINUS memory address space reserved for hardware (video card(s) and other hardware that require reserved memory). This typically results in 3 to 3.3 gigs being available in Vista 32 with 4+ gigs of RAM installed on the computer (same thing with XP 32). To see more than this with any Windows flavor, you must use the 64 bit version (XP or Vista).
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
No one with any sense (and who doesn't work for Microsoft) claims Vista is a "must-have" upgrade, though. It's basically a replacement for XP with a few extra bells and whistles... not worth upgrading if you have XP, but if you're building a new machine, there's no reason to avoid it.
I like that 64-bit support is more mainstream in Vista. XP Professional 64 always felt like an afterthought.
Beyond that, however, you are exactly right. There is no compelling reason to switch to Vista. And in many cases there are plenty of reasons (older hardware/software) not to.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
I hate to be a Grammar Nazi, but, in this context, the preferred spelling is "UPGRAYEDD".
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
Correct. Read here for more info.
Then we've had a number of clients buying new computers and getting stuck with Vista. Their experiences generally range from bad to just plain horrible.
I agree with this statement, most people I know with vista and like it, only web surf or type up projects. They would be as happy with a Mac as they would be with Vista or XP for that matter. I'm not a big fan of Mac or Vista but that's besides the point. The people I hear have trouble, are trying to get by with a budget computer (min requirements or less) and trying to play games on it (10FPS on low quality any one?), or upgrading a incompatible hardware computer to vista thinking everything would go fine because they spent a lot of money on the computer a month before vista came out, so logically it can run vista (PS: life isn't logical!).
I personally have tried vista, and didn't like it enough to make the change (I love XP and windows 3.11 still). I still can't stand that a lot of people bash Vista for stupid reason mostly; the constant security warnings when ever they open a program (My reply: then turn it off), others bash the UI (then download a mod and change it), even more complain about how their graphic cards can't run the cool DX10 effects (then don't use them or stop being cheap and buy something decent for once).
Offtopic: What will be even funnier is when they then try and change from 32bit vista to a 64bit xp without researching what it means and then find out nothing on their computer works. We need nerds to guide these casual users!!! (with out the intent on making the company the most money ala Fire Dog and Geek Squad; though some really do help but others don't understand the difference between ram and hard drive [go into best buy and pretend your buying a computer, act like a complete idiot and watch how they will do 1 of 3 things, take advantage, make mistakes or actually be of some help]) XKCD comic
~~
Noname
Shoot Yourself In the Foot
Glad to see another member of the "We'd tried Vista and guess what? It sucks." club. Meetings are on Thursday,coffee and donuts are in the back. I have a nice little repair shop,therefore I try to keep up with the "latest and greatest" from MSFT because I know I'm going to have to work on them. I have run Vista Beta,Vista RTM,and Vista SP1. Here is my impressions:
SLOW,Jeebus Tap Dancing Christ is this pile slow! Sure if you run it on a dual core with 4Gb of RAM it boots okay(still slow,just not as slow) but lets be honest here:It is an OPERATING SYSTEM. Anybody remember that word? It means it should give programs access to your hardware and get the f*ck out of the way. Nobody buys the OS to stare at the desktop. When a 3GHz with 2Gb of RAM is not enough horse to keep the OS from being slow,you know there is a problem.
Networking: I have 5 machines on my home network-2 XP,1 Win98SE,1 Win2K,and the machine that was running Vista(now XP,Thank the Gods). Can you guess which one would "lose" the network? Which one that would have the network just "die" and refuse to connect without a hard reboot? Give you a hint,it wasn't the Win98SE. And don't even get me started on file transfers through the LAN. A file that would take Win2K a few minutes? Go get some coffee and start working on the crossword buddy.
I could go on and on with how many ways Vista sucked,but thankfully I don't have to. You know why? Because the folks bringing their Vista machines to me DON'T want Vista fixed. Nope. They want it gone. As in "I hate this thing,please get it off before I throw it out a window AAARRGGH!". I know a guy who actually did that with his laptop after Vista seized and ate a document he had been working on for hours. Whizzed it out a 3rd story window,whipped out his CC,and went down the street and bought the nicest Macbook pro he could find.
For those that doubt go to CompUSA or Bestbuy and buy whatever Vista machine is on sale(like 90% of the public does),take it home,do NOT add any RAM or other upgrades,and see how quick you want to pull your hair out. I'm guessing it'll be like my average customer,that is 3 days. Sure you can build a tricked out multicore rig with sh*tloads of RAM and make it run Vista okay. But why the hell you you NEED to? It is an OS people! You know you have problems when I tell my customers Vista is an option on new builds and I get a loud "EEEEWWW!",like I let a raunchy fart in front of them. Or when people bring in their machines and say "I hate my new machine,can you fix it?" and I say "You got Vista'd,didn't you." and they hang their head and go "Yep. REAL hard. Please put XP on it,please!".
So the few of you that got lucky and the moon and the stars were aligned and you did the Ballmer monkey dance and all the drivers worked beautifully,be happy. Believe me,you are the exception,NOT the rule. And sorry about the length,it is hard to put the offal of Vista into words without adding length. Otherwise you get "Liar! Vista is beautiful and you should do the Ballmer monkey dance of joy!" trolls coming out of the wordwork. Just put any of the problems I had with Vista into Google and you'll find I'm far from alone.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The HP Linux printer system is excellent, and this is not intended as HP bashing per se.
In fact, not only HP but also Samsung have excellent Linux support. My advice to Vista users is simple: do not buy HP all in ones, especially as you can get cheap to operate color lasers from other manufacturers.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
One of my many bosses at work was really, totally into Vista, defended it tooth and nail and swore up and down it was the best thing he ever had done did see. I kept telling him he'd end up hating it, and just didn't believe me. Asked me if I ever used, and I explained the only time I ever did was for five minutes playing with a Touchsmart at Best Buy. He said if I hadn't used it then I really have no right to talk bad about it, so I just let it go.
Then he started having problems, blue screens, he shelled out a couple hundred on a new motherboard trying to bulldoze the problem, and it did fix it.
Then he got SP1, and he got blue screens again, then he reinstalled and he still got them.
Then he bought new memory...
New hard drive...
New processor...
New video card...
Then, and I swear this is a pretty bright guy, he found out it was shoddy web cam drivers, the one he insisted to always have plugged in.
Then he switched back to XP just so he could keep using that web cam. I said, "It's not Microsoft's fault that this company made bad drivers" and he said "Yeah, I decided Vista wasn't so amazing after all"
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
You need 64-bit Windows for Windows to see more than 4GB of RAM, but that's only because Windows is so poorly written. It's support for PAE in the workstation-class editions is half-assed at best, even though PAE has been near universal since the Pentium Pro. XP SP2 even requires PAE for full use of the Data Execution Prevention, but Microsoft has never enabled a 32-bit non-server operating system to access more that 4GB of RAM.
They clearly could, and it's obvious that over the past several years there's been quite a bit of demand for PAE support on 32-bit systems, but Microsoft has never deigned to supply that. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this wouldn't be the case if the desktop operating system market were even somewhat competitive.
Downgrade? Upgrade is more like it.
You poor, poor dead horse. You've been beaten so badly. Rest now.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
32bit systems don't have enough addressing space for 4GB of RAM, cuz 2^32 - 1 = 4,294,967,295. This space is also shared with other hardware. It's not because Windows is poorly written. Microsoft can't just turn on a magical switch that lets a 32bit OS see all 4GB of RAM.
Yes, they can. The person you were replying to even spelled it out for you.
Three times.
It's called PAE.