Slashdot Mirror
Vista To XP Upgrade Triples In Price, Now $150
ozmanjusri writes "Dell has tripled the charge to upgrade Vista PCs to XP. Under current licensing 'downgrade' agreements, system builders can install XP Pro instead of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate; however, Dell has opted for a surcharge of $150 over the price of Vista for the older but more popular XP Professional operating system. Rob Enderle says the downgrade fees could potentially be disastrous for Microsoft: 'The fix for this should be to focus like lasers on demand generation for Vista but instead Microsoft is focusing aggressively on financial penalties," says Enderle. 'Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop.'"
Most people believe that Windows is synonymous with computers. Being the consumer sheeple they are, they're going to go with what hits their wallet the least—especially in a depressed economy.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
It's so huge and its hold is so strong that even the giants like Microsoft, trying their hardest to destroy it, can't succeed.
Honestly, I don't know what all the resistance to Vista is all about. I've been using it everyday for the past 18 months plus, and I've never had a problem with it, and that's on what was a relatively low-end machine I bought three years ago. All my hardware works fine, it never crashes, and it's easy to use. It doesn't seem at all slow to me, either. And, yes, I also use Linux as my main computer at work. I just prefer Vista for its ease-of-use when I come home.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Merry Christmas and a bottle of rum! But seriously, combined with economic downturn, more and more people will just pirate it.
How do they rationalize it to the consumer, I'm kind of curious, given that they phrase it as a "downgrade"
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
I can't wait for the Apple ads to make fun of this. People are willing to pay extra to avoid Windows Vista.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
> Somebody had to post it
No.
One reason people say Linux has a hard time gaining ground is because it's free so people think it's shit so it has to be given away.
That's partially true. People do believe the cost of something is related to it's value. Well now MS is implying that XP is better because it costs much more to have it. The sad thing is they're probably right in that it is better.
Color me mildly shocked that Enderle, at least in TFS, accurately described the situation.
While the Microsoft schill, Enderle, might finally be right about something it does raise a major question.
Why do the PC vendors position their products so that Linux versions of their PCs are MORE expensive than Microsoft versions of the same basic thing. This is most notably the case with Dell and Asus.
In the case of both vendors, their Linux offerings are more expensive than their Windows offering. And while some might point out that the Asus EEE Linux version is more expensive because it has an SSD where the XP version has a regular hard drive, it still creates the perception that the Linux version is more expensive AND has far less storage.
Can I get a 160GB Linux based EEE. Sorry, no can do. It is cheaper to buy the Windows version and remove Windows and install Ubuntu. But why?
The conspiracy theorists may be able to argue that Microsoft is behind it in Dell's case but, I can't accept that Microsoft is forcing Asus to do the same. Why are they positioning Linux as the more expensive option?
This is something that can only happen when there is a monopoly involved. If there were a real and competitive environment, a vendor would not be able to do this to their customers without them choosing the competition.
It is so bad, that they aren't choosing competition, they are choosing to keep their previous product. Its pathetic.
Capitalists call it "persuasion".
I am erotic. You are kinky. They are perverts.
We protect. Our allies enforce. Our enemies oppress.
Government appropriates. Telecoms lobby. WiFi users steal.
It all depends on your point of view.
They charge more for XP Pro, so it must be more valuable than Vista. I'll go with that instead.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Salt the XP fields as thoroughly as possible.
That's a great point. It's a shame the moderators are racist. People want to buy XP. Microsoft needs new leadership that provides what the customer wants.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Microsoft can spray all the marketing turd polish they want on Vista but it will still stink.
Vista, with good drivers, is JUST AS GOOD AS XP.
Is it different, in a way that some are scared by? Sure. If you use XP drivers, is it worse? Yep. But Windows Vista isn't any worse than Windows XP, and if you're getting a new PC you might as well get the new OS as well.
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
I don't believe a Windows that runs like a dog even if you blow $1,000 on new hardware and that has been designed to allow Microsoft to de-escalate your privileges when it pleases them (turn on full DRM or apply other, stealth "updates") describes XP nearly as well as it describes Vista.
Ballmer should be on his hands and knees begging Allchin to come back. Even promise him a chair on the board, if he can find one.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
I've personally never liked the idea of replacing a 7-year-old machine only to get the exact same (or worse) performance.
Is there really any reason to upgrade to Vista (aside from the "we're forcing you to upgrade through lack of support" nonsense)? Upgrading to XP got most (home) users onto the NT codebase, but what does upgrading to Vista really give to end users? That pretty GUI which requires 2GB ram and 3d hardware to run smoothly? Tch. I'll pass, thanks.
If just as good you mean more resource intensive for roughly the same functionality then yeah you are right. Vista is an unneccesary and overpriced extension of the functionality found in XP. There is almost NOTHING that will run on Vista that wont run on XP. Even the supposed DX10 Vista only games were easily patched to run on XP. Im sure Vista runs fine now, but it doesnt offer me anythign functionality wise to risk the driver and hardware compatibility, not to mention the change hardware-reactivate BS.
Good-bye
I bought my wife a computer for Christmas for around 300 - no monitor.
She asked that I install Linux on it for her.
She wasn't home when I set it up so I decided to give vista a whirl thinking that surely it isn't as resource intensive as everyone here makes it out to be.
This was not a high end system, but a definite upgrade from her old computer. It was a 2.1GHz 64 bit Dual Core Processor with 2 gig of ram.
It was worse than I could have imagined. The only thing that was fast was the boot time but afterward everything was almost non-responsive and did not get much better after all the drivers were installed.
I ended up installing 64 bit Debian Sid withe KDE 4 from experimental.
KDE 4 is blew Vista out of the water in terms of speed. I can't compare much of the features because Vista took so damn long to do anything I finally gave up.
I've personally never liked the idea of replacing a 7-year-old machine only to get the exact same (or worse) performance.
Amen. I believe this is a matter of cultural momentum. During the early days of PC adoption, you could easily forecast that hardware would become faster, memory would become plentiful, and (here's the important bit) that people would be hungry for improvement. This latter point was a crucial business driver, because there was so much unrealised potential in the PC during the early era. Can you actually write an entire book using a PC for example? You can now, but it wasn't so easy then.
When you look at today's performance and price curves, the forecasts have diverged a bit, and the business drivers will again be that strong. You can't keep adding multipliers to the resources an OS needs, because hardware capability isn't increasing logarithmically any more. And more to the point, the hunger isn't there any more. Superb capability has become a commodity, so there is little perceived need to fund improvements.
The issue with Microsoft is that -- largely due to their size -- they have been working on the assumption that people will always hunger for more, when in fact those needs have largely been met by now. If they really want to remain profitable, they should simply stop innovating, cut their team down to where their momentum is less than that of continental drift, and print copies of XP Pro to people who will still continue to insist on Windows for new computers. The rest of us would be grateful to them if they did.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Unless you do real work with it.
Vista Test by me.
Client DEMANDED Vista. we gave it to him.
Accounting software stopped working. Upgraded to a tune of $4500.00 to make it work.
Software for the CNC machines stopped working. (reporting and program generation) no solution. Must dual boot to XP or VMWARE to XP.
Software for CAD. Stopped working (Autocad Dongle Vista Issue.) Upgrade to fix the issue $8900.00
Vista COST that company well over $20,000.00 and give them a hit on productivity.
My Personal test... video editign station. New Vista system: Editing software fails or errors a LOT. under XP on the SAME HARDWARE it has no failures.
Vendor has no workable solution other than "we are working on that"
Vista take a working computer and makes it not work for it's job.
Now, I can switch from industry standard pro video editing software to one of the crappy toys that works under vista. but then the HDMI capture card and the other analog capture cards fail to operate as they DONT HAVE VISTA DRIVERS.
Vista is great for a home PC that is not used for anything. Vista sucks when you make money on the Computer and HAVE TO have the system work no matter what.
Hence almost EVERY corporation has no plants to upgrade to Vista. Even microsoft Puppets like Comcast are not doing it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What's also dreadful about it is that it's an excuse for your inability to get your ideas over. You convince yourself that it's not that your ideas are wrong, or that your arguments are weak, or that your communication skills aren't up to the job. No, it's because people are sheeple, so it's not your fault.
Aack! s/"the business drivers will again be that strong."/the business drivers will never again be that strong/.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
"'Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop.'""
I've heard this argument before but it just doesn't make sense. Here's why:
I am a computer user that uses windows. I can buy a machine with windows, a good one, for $500 or less. But its got, vista, I don't like vista. So what do most slashdotters think will happen next?
1) abandon windows and buy a mac that costs twice as much as a windows pc
2) abandon windows and buy a cheaper pc running linux
3) user buys vista machine for $500
I would say a normal rational shopper would go with number 3.
Here's why 1 wouldn't be an option.
It is irrational to pay twice as much for a computer that does basically the same thing and has a much different interface.
Here's why 2 wouldn't be an option.
The shopper is less likely to find a computer running linux for sale in a store or online, if they weren't specifically shopping for a linux pc. In addition, if they knew anything about linux they would realize it can't run word, internet explorer, itunes or most of the other programs they want without a high level of expertise.
Here's why 3 would be the choice:
Its available. Vista is easier to transition to if you are already familiar with windows xp. The price is cheaper than mac. You can run most of your programs you want on it.
Playing devil's advocate:
Perhaps MS are tired of providing service packs and countless patches for a 7-year-old operating system so they're passing on the costs of keeping the XP dev team fed to the people who make them necessary?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
The magic new feature is support.
Windows 98 did die out because it was broken, there were plenty of after market software solutions that could more then make up for any of 98's downfalls. But then companies like Avira and Mozilla go to Microsoft to get support insight and help integrating their products into Vista and all the sudden the coincidence of ending the life of the windows 98 support for a lot of the products. They same happened with windows 2000 which technically should be able to run almost everything XP could. SO your right in that XP might not be missing anything. It won't become functionally obsolete, it will just get left behind in some sort of unconcerned move every software vendor will make to newer MS products.
In other words, there will come a time when you need something and you will end up having to upgrade to get it or the free and open source products like Mozilla will just ignore the platform and no one with the skill will pick it up.
>Why is it Microsofts fault that hardware manufacturers refused to put out new drivers, or could not get them out in time?
>I don't get this, when the same scenario exists for linux, there are howls and hate hoots for the hardware manufacturer. Switch Linux for Vista and suddenly its all Microsofts fault...
It isn't the same scenario, that is why.
Microsoft expects hardware manufacturers to write drivers. What incentive is there for a hardware company to do that for hardware they have already sold? This is especially the case for hardware that is no longer in production (i.e. last year's model).
On the other hand, Linux writes its own drivers. All that Linux developers want is information (such as register mappings) to be able to do so. Since the hardware company already has that information, all that is need is for the hardware company to let the Linux developers see it. Linux developers will not only write the driver for you for no cost, they will maintain it until there is zero demand for it, and they will even sign an NDA if you would like.
Linux developers will also generate and work with source code, so that a 64-bit version of the driver is only a re-compile away. Having source code also means that older hardware is supported by Linux for far longer ... unlike Windows it is not necessary to try to install an old binary-only copy from a years-old CDROM, and pray that it still works with a much newer (and still binary-only) kernel.
The scenarios you described are less the fault of Windows and more due to the fatal flaw in the proprietary software model.
POKE 36879,8
...Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than XP....
That question might be re-stated: Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than Mac OSX?
I still have an iBook G4 that came with OSX.3 originally and was upgraded later to 768M of RAM. Since I had bought a family license of OSX.5 (leopard) for our other Macs, I decided to upgrade the G4. It runs faster and better now than when it was new. This is also the case with our original Mac mini, which is now used for music and video, driving our 47 inch LCD television. Also, the same scanner and printer drivers that worked with OSX.3 work just the same with OSX.5, which is not the case with old XP drivers working on VISTA.
Any time you upgrade old hardware with a newer version of Windows, performance drops significantly. The only way you can get performance back up, is to throw or give away the old hardware and buy a new computer. When you buy a decent name brand (not the cheapest junk available) new computer with VISTA, its performance is about the same or slightly better than the old one with XP. The biggest reason why Microsoft does this, is because they make most of their money not from user upgrades of their OS, but from the manufacturers of new computers. They force the users to buy new hardware, so that they can run improved software. So, if forced to buy a new computer anyway, to run VISTA, why not get a Mac and be done with malware infested Windows forever? It seems that some of the smarter people out there are coming to a very logical conclusion. This is why, even in a recession, the more expensive Macs are still selling well.
All theory is gray
Ten years, here, and neither have I. Of course, I just never bother to post stuff that I don't want linked to my UID.
Put identity in the browser.
Uhm... Wasn't the reason people hate linux that they have to google around for fixes for things that should work out of the box, and wasn't the great part of Windows that every end user can just use the computer without having to tweak it...?
It would finish up the bias slant on the article. If Dell are going to support an older OS. Its going to cost them more, its fair enough to pass that cost on to the buyer who is creating the extra cost. Remember a Dell sold today can have up to 5 years warranty thats past XP's end of support date and the prices for that support after go through the roof.
Uhm ... comparing apples with apples ... if Linux is pre-installed on a machine like Windows normally is, end users will have a near-identical experience with each one ... everything will "just work" every end user can just use the computer without having to tweak it.
If one has a random bare machine and a Windows install disk and also a Linux LiveCD install disk ... then for ease of use today the Linux experience will beat the Windows experience hands down no contest. For a start ... only the Linux LiveCD will let one test the machine to makes sure everything will work before you attempt to install it. Linux will not ask for CD keys, registration or activation. Linux will let you have as many user accounts as you want, and any version of Linux will work with business networks. Linux will work for vastly more hardware out-of-the-box than Windows will.