Microsoft Says No Profit In Vista-XP Downgrades

CWmike writes "Microsoft has denied that it makes money when users 'downgrade' Windows Vista to XP, as a lawsuit filed last week alleges. The lawsuit, submitted last week, stems from the $59.25 fee that a California woman was charged in mid-2008 when she bought a Lenovo laptop and downgraded from Vista to XP. In fact, it's computer makers, not Microsoft per se, that charge users the additional fees for downgrading a new PC from Vista to XP at the factory. For example, Dell Inc. adds an extra $20 to the price to downgrade a PC. However, Microsoft may profit from the way it structures downgrade rights."

Comments

Of course they are making money

[VampireByte]

It doesn't matter if your machine comes with vista or xp because you're probably going to pony-up the dough for MS Office, and there's the profit. As long as Microsoft keeps you on a Windows platform, be it vista or xp, they've got that Office gravy coming in.

Re:Of course they are making money

[jellomizer]

Yes, but Windows use to be Microsoft Turkey that the Gravy just made better.
Back in them olden days of the 1990's People wanted to get the latest and greatest versions of DOS/Windows. Now today people are not jumping threw hoops. I have been at Big companies who require Windows 2000 still.

Re:Of course they are making money

[the_humeister]

Microsoft makes money of course. But the question is: do they make money on the downgrade? The answer seems to be "no" since it's the computer vendor that is charging for the downgrade. It's right there in the article (even the summary!).

What you're talking about is something completely different.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Scutter]

they've got that Office gravy coming in

Mmmm....office gravy....

Re:Of course they are making money

[von_rick]

The vendors purchase licenses for a specific number of computers. If the vendor uses two licenses for the same machine (Vista & downgrade to XP), I don't see the vendor profiting in any way. What you did was purchase 2 licenses, and the profits are shared by your vendor as well as M$. Its hard to tell how they share those profits.

That, or I have no clue what I'm talking about.

Re:Of course they are making money

[von_rick]

5% of people will wait until Billy gets home from college, at which point he'll grab a free/cheap version through his school and slap it on

From what I know, Billy's college pays such a hefty price for volume licenses that M$ already have their base covered if Billy's granpaw installs a Office 2007 just to look at Powerpoint slides from feel good emails.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Bearhouse]

Not quite correct. FTA:"...when Dell was accused of gouging customers by charging $150 to downgrade a new computer to XP. Dell countered that although it did charge $20 to install XP on the machine, as well as to cover the cost of the additional media, the bulk -- $120 of the $150 -- was the price of upgrading the PC from the standard Home Premium to the more expensive Business edition.

Microsoft does not offer downgrade rights with its Vista Home Premium, the most popular of Vista's editions."

Your Dell config came with Vista Home Premium? Well, if you want XP you're SOL, that'll be $120 to 'upgrade' the Vista you want to 'downgrade'.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Peter Simpson]

Why would you use two licenses? You never used Vista, and downgraded to XP. AND - you already paid (through the "Microsoft tax") for the Vista license, which should cost more than an XP license.

It all comes down to what image Dell copies to the hard drive as they build the PC. It should cost no more to write an XP image than to burn a Vista image, and only one license is ever used.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Taimat]

Not 2 licenses... At my company, we build clones for our customer - with Vista, but we downgrade them all to XP. It's just 1 license. According to M$FT, They will not provide you with Media (you need your own XP media) or a license key (you reuse a key you have). When you go to activate, (if you didn't use a non-activation code) you have to explain to the rep that you are using your downgrade rights, and they will provide a new machine code for activation (not a new key). Vista Ultimate and Vista Business can be downgraded to XP in this manner.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Sponge Bath]

It's a little too lumpy and greasy for my taste.

Re:Of course they are making money

[c1t1z3nk41n3]

Most people simply throw away old TPS reports but this is such a waste. Simply add a chicken base and blend on puree. Voila! Office Gravy! This simple addition is sure to add a delightful flare to your next Synergy Snacktime or Branding Banquet!

Re:Of course they are making money

[hardburn]

People don't. Businesses do. That's where Microsoft makes their real money.

Re:Of course they are making money

[AliasMarlowe]

That, or I have no clue what I'm talking about.

And wouldn't that be a first on /.

Re:Of course they are making money

[sexconker]

And this lawsuit is about...?

Re:Of course they are making money

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "through" hoops? Unless you're an acrobat I doubt you're throwing it and then jumping through it.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Bearhouse]

Not 2 licenses... At my company, we build clones for our customer - with Vista, but we downgrade them all to XP. It's just 1 license. According to M$FT, They will not provide you with Media (you need your own XP media) or a license key (you reuse a key you have). When you go to activate, (if you didn't use a non-activation code) you have to explain to the rep that you are using your downgrade rights, and they will provide a new machine code for activation (not a new key). Vista Ultimate and Vista Business can be downgraded to XP in this manner.

So, to paraphrase:
1. They will not provide you with Media (you need your own XP media)
2. They will not provide you with ...a license key (you reuse a key you have).
3. Some complex bullshit is required to activate.

Sounds just like downloading a Torrent, only more expensive...

Re:Of course they are making money

[Taimat]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes - More complex if you talk to "John Smith" from India

Re:Of course they are making money

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a pretty accurate description of doing anything remotely involved with Acrobat.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Bearhouse]

More complex if you talk to "John Smith" from India

I feel your pain, bro.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Khopesh]

That's exactly the issue (as I understand it); you must pay more money to upgrade to Vista Ultimate or Vista Business so that you can then downgrade to XP Professional. With Dell, this upgrade is an extra $99 (unless you happen to catch them doing a free XP downgrade promo).

Isn't an up-sell on editions a profit generator for Microsoft in addition to Dell? Doesn't that mean both companies are making MORE money by requiring this?

The cons of course is that I'm comparing a $99 upgrade from Vista Home Basic to Vista Business Bonus (which has a license transferable to XP Professional), which is comparable to the $99 upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro back before Vista came out, so it's really the same thing, but I don't see how Microsoft can claim they're not profiting off of this. On top of this, nobody running Windows XP independent of an Active Directory server would care about getting Professional instead of Home ... it's just that Dell (et al) aren't offering Windows XP Home downgrades, since there would be no profit. Hmm...

Microsoft can claim they're not making money on XP, but they can't claim that people downgrading to XP doesn't make more money through upgrading Vista for the transferable license.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Z00L00K]

And with Office 2007 the user interface went completely bonkers.

Maybe they wanted it easier - but I can't call it better. I'm still getting dandruff from it.

Re:Of course they are making money

[mysticgoat]

Since I'm not going to RTFA as I've moved on to Ubuntu, perhaps someone can clarify this for me:

• Microsoft makes no money off of Vista -> WinXP downgrades.
• The downgrade option is part of high end Business Vista packages.
• The downgrade option is not part of the Home Vista packages
• Most computers that are downgraded from Vista to WinXP are mid and low end models that come with the Home Vista package
• When a purchaser of a computer with the Home Vista package wants to downgrade to WinXP, the OEM therefore has to sell him the upgrade to a Business Vista package that is then immediately downgraded to WinXP
• Microsoft gets significant money from all upgrades of Home Vista packages to Business Vista packages
• Plus, it looks good on the reports that so many people who buy Home Vista immediately see an advantage to upgrading to Business Vista.

Did I get that right? Shades of Milo Minderbender! Microsoft has developed the digital equivalent of buying eggs in Cairo for 12 cents a dozen and selling them in Rome at 11 cents a dozen at a profit (because they first bought them at 9 cents a dozen in Athens before shipping them to Cairo)...

I am really glad that Ubuntu got good enough to use fast enough that I could walk away from the Microsoft culture before it sank this deep in Catch 22 logical fruit loops.

Re:Of course they are making money

[atraintocry]

That's not at all what the lawsuit was about.

Re:Of course they are making money

[commodore64_love]

Hmmm, let me think. My name is Microsoft, and I just sold another copy of Windows XP to a new customer. Did I make a profit?

No, no. Absolutely not! Mmmm-mmmm. No sir, no way, no how. No profit. Nyet, nada, nichts.

(Oh and thanks for the hundred dollars.)

Re:Of course they are making money

[m.ducharme]

What, having no clue, or admitting to having no clue?

Or both?

Re:Of course they are making money

[snaz555]

The vendors purchase licenses for a specific number of computers. If the vendor uses two licenses for the same machine (Vista & downgrade to XP), I don't see the vendor profiting in any way. What you did was purchase 2 licenses, and the profits are shared by your vendor as well as M$. Its hard to tell how they share those profits.

You'd only buy one license - the Vista one - because all Windows licenses come with backward rights. You can use a Vista license to install XP or 2k, or even Win95, although you may need to request a key. Volume licenses are no different in this regard.

The vendor makes money because they charge $60 to insert a custom auto-everything-self-installing XP DVD instead of a Vista DVD before pressing the reset button. Same work. $60 more. Profit!

Re:Of course they are making money

[TheEldest]

It would be the exact same cost to downgrade to Windows XP Home as to go to Windows XP Pro.

If it'll cost the same, why not give everyone XP Pro so that they don't need to ever worry about lacking features?

Re:Of course they are making money

[Tenebrousedge]

No, actually, they're selling Vista licenses. Vista Business and Ultimate both include downgrade rights to XP.

Microsoft isn't making any money on the downgrade because it's not an additional license. M$ makes money selling licenses to OEMs, for the most part. If the OEM charges for a downgrade, M$ receives nothing---why should they?

I don't see anything wrong with OEMs charging for the downgrade, either. If they were selling new XP licenses, that would be a whole different story, but as long as they're slapping a Vista label on the machine, and providing Vista recovery media, the XP downgrade represents an additional cost for them.

I liked XP for the most part, I really did. But it's an eight year old OS: it's time for it to go. This really shouldn't even be an issue at this point.

Re:Of course they are making money

[davester666]

They make money in a roundabout fashion for upgrading to XP.

Non-business users, who normally are offered Vista Home / Home Premium, don't get the 'right' (which is an artificial limitation by Microsoft) to downgrade to XP and/or XP Pro. So, in order to gain this 'right', they need to purchase a more expensive version of Vista.

Hence, Microsoft makes more money, and they know it, but they can still technically claim "there is no charge to downgrade to XP".

Re:Of course they are making money

[z80kid]

> This really shouldn't even be an issue at this point.

You're right. It *shouldn't* be.

It's unfortunate that it is.

Re:Of course they are making money

[essinger]

I'd bet the majority of downgrades are actually business users who are just plugging a new computer into an existing XP/Server2003 infrastructure. So no extra money at all there. The difference between a XP-MCE license and a Vista-Home license is only around $10-$20. So the vendor really shouldn't be sticking it to the end-user for much loot. I'd guess Microsoft doesn't see much money out of it. But it is very convenient for the vendor to make it appear as if that is MS's fault.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Tenebrousedge]

That is not true.

See the following:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/2/3/d23b9533-169d-4996-b198-7b9d3fe15611/downgrade_chart.doc

http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/8/6/2860872a-35dc-4a10-8617-3927aacd189a/downgradeOEMversion-020707.pdf

For OEM and End User licenses, Vista Business and Ultimate alone have downgrade rights, and the list of what they may be downgraded to is short.

Re:Of course they are making money

[blueZ3]

I think the point is that users who are planning on downgrading to XP have to cough up more money for the "Super Mondo Ultimate Mega" version of Vista. If they're not using Vista anyway, why can't they downgrade from the "Plain Vanilla Generic" Vista license?

MS profits from selling the pricier version of Vista and the OEM profits from the downgrade fee. What's not to love?

Re:Of course they are making money

[CFTM]

Yeah I seem to remember seeing pie charts of Microsoft's revenue per product and it's crazy how much they make off the Office Suite....

Re:Of course they are making money

[CFTM]

We may not like the practice, but it's not illegal and I can't even argue it being unethical.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Khopesh]

I have not seen an option for Windows XP Home since before Vista came out. They've eliminated that option because they can't justify charging more money for it. The extra $99 is supposed to bridge the gap from Home to Pro so that your license is transferable. Vista Home Basic licenses aren't transferable to XP Home specifically to force you to get Vista Business and pay the extra $99.

Re:Of course they are making money

[the_humeister]

It is technically true. On the other hand, with every new MS operating system, there are always a group of people kicking and screaming about prying the old OS from their dead hands. It happened with Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95, Windows 98/Windows 2000 -> Windows XP, and now it's happening with Windows XP -> Windows Vista.

At least you have the option of downgrading to Windows XP. Do you (not you in particular, but the general "you") think Apple would even allow the purchase of a new Macintosh without the latest version of Mac OS X 10.5.x?

Re:Of course they are making money

[mysticgoat]

I don't think that's the case. I would guess any business large enough to have IT staff would buy site licenses direct from Microsoft and have their staff burn the images in house. Otherwise maintenance would become a monstrous problem, especially when you consider the difficulties of keeping MS OSs clean and protected from malware.

So I expect that most of these Vista --> WinXP upgrades are from home, student, and small office users. Those are also the ones most likely to give the Vista Home package a try, and then deciding they are better off upgrading back to WinXP.

But I don't know for sure. Still, I am pretty sure that very few businesses with a dozen computers or more are shopping for new ones at Staples, Office Depot, WalMart, or Dell's catalogs.

Re:Of course they are making money

[commodore64_love]

>>>No, actually, they're selling Vista licenses.

(revised)

Hmmm, let me think. My name is Microsoft, and I just sold another copy of Windows Vista to a new customer, who then chose to downgrade to XP. Did I make a profit off this customer?

No, no. Absolutely not! No sir, no way, no how. Nyet, nada, nichts.

(Oh and thanks for the 2 hundred dollars.)

Re:Of course they are making money

[commodore64_love]

>>>I liked XP for the most part, I really did. But it's an eight year old OS: it's time for it to go.

Yeah but this eight-year-old OS still works better than any other Windows alternative. It's better than Win98/me, and it's better than Vista. Age should not matter but performance. (Or so I tell the young college-aged women.) ;-)

Heck, I still drive a 22 year old car because it still operates.

Re:Of course they are making money

[socrplayr813]

Oh so you're the one that's been making all those 'secretary' videos...

Re:Of course they are making money

[msuarezalvarez]

Do you (not you in particular, but the general "you") think Apple would even allow the purchase of a new Macintosh without the latest version of Mac OS X 10.5.x?

One has to wonder how many times has that happened...

Re:Of course they are making money

[Anachragnome]

Good thing the OpenOffice.org is bi-directionally compatible with Microsoft Office products.

Seriously, other then the operating system, most people irritated enough to want XP over Vista are running non-Microsoft apps anyways. At least the ones I encounter.

I am sure there are quite a few people out there, just like me, that hang onto XP ONLY so they can run popular games on their machines(as opposed to WINE emulatuion).

I admit I still use Process Explorer(Microsoft owned now...Boo! Hiss!). Anyone got a link to the last Pre-Microsoft version?
 

Re:Of course they are making money

[essinger]

I don't think that's the case. I would guess any business large enough to have IT staff would buy site licenses direct from Microsoft and have their staff burn the images in house. Otherwise maintenance would become a monstrous problem, especially when you consider the difficulties of keeping MS OSs clean and protected from malware. . . .

But I don't know for sure. Still, I am pretty sure that very few businesses with a dozen computers or more are shopping for new ones at Staples, Office Depot, WalMart, or Dell's catalogs.

You'd be surprised. The average business only has about 16 employees, most actually have fewer. They don't have in-house IT. They buy from companies like Dell because they can also get the service plans to go with them. I guess there are more copies of Windows SBS out there than all the other versions combined. Those people still need the Business version.

Re:Of course they are making money

[petermgreen]

The thing is individual users who wanted earlier versions prior to XP just reused an existing disk/key. Sure it was a violation of the license but I doubt many home users cared.

With XP MS tightened the screws. Retail and system builder copies have activation limits, big brand copies are locked to a brand and sometimes to a particular model. Volume license copies of XP don't have such restrictions but through WGA MS has been tightening the screws on those who use leaked/generated volume license keys.

MS tightened the screws even further with vista by eliminating the no activation required keys for volume license customers and replacing them with the MAK/KMS system.

Re:Of course they are making money

[BlueStrat]

>>>No, actually, they're selling Vista licenses.

(revised)

Hmmm, let me think. My name is Microsoft, and I just sold another copy of Windows Vista to a new customer, who then chose to downgrade to XP. Did I make a profit off this customer?

No, no. Absolutely not! No sir, no way, no how. Nyet, nada, nichts.

(Oh and thanks for the 2 hundred dollars.)

[sarcasm]
It will get even better when Windows 7 hits! (Especially if the recent stories about it being a DRM-laden, locked-down POS that makes Vista seem like an OS made by a partnership between aXXo & The Pirate Bay are true.)

First you'll have to pay to upgrade to 7 Professional to be allowed to pay to downgrade *only* to Vista Home, then pay again to be allowed to upgrade Vista Home to Professional, *then*, finally, you'll be allowed to pay once more to down-down-down-grade to XP Professional.

My, isn't it generous of them to "allow" all these things?

But MS and Dell won't be making a dime. No, no. Absolutely not! No sir, no way, no how. Nyet, nada, nichts It's a sacrifice they're willing to make because the casW^customer is their #1 priority! :D
[/sarcasm]

Strat

Re:Of course they are making money

[couchslug]

"It's unfortunate that it is."

That's a matter of opinion.
I want Microsoft to chase its customers away, and this may help.

Re:Of course they are making money

[SlowMovingTarget]

They didn't want to make it easier to use, they wanted to make it patentable ("The Ribbon Interface"). Now they get to license the Office Look & Feel.

Re:Of course they are making money

[vux984]

Microsoft does not offer downgrade rights with its Vista Home Premium, the most popular of Vista's editions."

Your Dell config came with Vista Home Premium? Well, if you want XP you're SOL, that'll be $120 to 'upgrade' the Vista you want to 'downgrade'.

Ok, but there's still something you missed:

You are getting XP Professional, not XP Home. You've always had to pay extra for Pro.

Microsoft launched Vista, and effectively discontinued XP. There is no reason they should -HAVE- to offer downgrade rights at all. However, for their business customers, that flexibility is available on the Pro operating systems.

Home users who don't want Vista, are upgrading to pro to take advantage of the downgrade rights to xp pro. They are getting what they paid for.

Seriously, the real question is why does microsoft have to offer any product at all at a given price point?

What if they had simply decided not to offer Home Basic or Home Premium at all, and just had a single edition "Windows Vista", and that's it?! All those low end consumer PCs would cost $100 more, but it wouldn't be 'extra' because there would be no lower version, and now everyone would have downgrade rights. Would that make these idiots happier?

Re:Of course they are making money

[Giometrix]

They didn't want to make it easier to use, they wanted to make it patentable ("The Ribbon Interface"). Now they get to license the Office Look & Feel.

Are you sure that was the intent? They released an MFC Ribbon component (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc872782.aspx) so that any developer can implement a similar interface on their apps. A .NET version is expected soon I believe.

Re:Of course they are making money

[dbIII]

There's some sort of licence key hack on the Lenovo XP install CDs but you never actually get a licence key.

That means when things go wrong and you need to reinstall and use up all the activations you are totally screwed due to a lack of a licence key. I'm in the middle of day three of that stuffup due to an idiot getting talked into buying Vista laptops and a downgrade kit. The supplier, Lenovo and Microsoft are just pointing fingers at each other.

Yet another reason to use MS Windows 2000 if you have to use MS Windows at all - none of this limited activation and genuine advantage crap.

In hindsight complete disk images before the users click on "disable antivirus to see this pron" gets around the problem, but of course I didn't do that.

For such an inherently fragile system as MS Windows XP you need to be sure that you can completley wipe all traces of it and start from scratch.

Re:Of course they are making money

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

The anger with Office 2007 came from all the MS Office users who needed more functionality then New/Save/Spell check/Print. If you used any of the intermediate functionality good luck finding it and making it work.

Oh, and Mac OS 10 didn't break compatibility with OS 9 (I used Mac OS 9 apps on Mac OS 10 for years. Backwards compatibility was only broken when Apple switched to an Intel based hardware platform.

At first I hated Mac OS 10, but once they fixed it up a little I found it much faster to navigate then Mac OS 9.

I've been using mostly Windows XP and then Vista for the last 6 years, however On the rare occasions I use a Mac I find Mac OS 10 faster and easier to navigate it than XP/Vista. Though I do wish Mac OS 10 would allow you to copy/paste files.(It still doesn't, right?)

Re:Of course they are making money

[chrish]

Dunno which version of the Finder added the feature, but you can definitely copy and paste files in the version I'm using (10.5.6).

Re:Of course they are making money

[swillden]

The cons of course is that I'm comparing a $99 upgrade from Vista Home Basic to Vista Business Bonus (which has a license transferable to XP Professional), which is comparable to the $99 upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro back before Vista came out, so it's really the same thing, but I don't see how Microsoft can claim they're not profiting off of this. On top of this, nobody running Windows XP independent of an Active Directory server would care about getting Professional instead of Home ...

And people say F/LOSS licensing is confusing!

Re:Of course they are making money

[jo42]

For the Nth time, going from Vista to XP is an upgrade. Going from XP to Vista is a downgrade.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Allador]

Or you just do the downgrade from a large OEM like Dell or HP.

Then you get both sets of media, and both keys.

And dont ever have to activate or deal with Microsoft in any way.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Allador]

On top of this, nobody running Windows XP independent of an Active Directory server would care about getting Professional instead of Home

Not sure I would agree with this. You lose alot of things, including the ability to join a domain (you'd be surprised how many small business owners idiotically buy XP Home or Vista Home, and then get irritated when they cant join the domain).

You lose RDP, you lose the Security tab in Explorer, and access to a bunch of mgmt tools.

The flip side is that its arguable that MS is just making you buy the full product if you want downgrade rights. XP/Vista Home and lower versions are just cut-feature/cut-cost versions that are intended to target the marget segment that is more price sensitive. So you have an opportunity for some people to pay less and get less. This means more people overall can buy the product. This is the most basic of basic business tactics, and its common the world over.

Given that, I'm not too surprised they make you get the full product, or at least close to the full product, before giving downgrade rights. It goes along the lines of, if you want all the features/bennies, you need to pay full price.

Mind you, the 'full price' for Windows is still a bit ridiculously high, but thats another issue.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Allador]

Most computers that are downgraded from Vista to WinXP are mid and low end models that come with the Home Vista package

Thats the assumption you've made that likely isnt true.

My personal (and therefore anecdotal) experience is that the vast, vast majority of non-business users buying the mid to low end models are not doing the downgrade, they just take what Best Buy sells them.

The vast, vast majority of downgrades I see are savvy small & medium business users purchasing them. Only the SMB market of course because bigger orgs are already in licensing agreements that let them downgrade.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Allador]

The vast majority of business users buy office.

The home users dont, but they just go to costco and get home & student version of Office for $89.

Re:Of course they are making money

[Allador]

Actually, its the opposite.

Education and Non-Profit get MS products for dramatically reduced rates compared to retail or corporate licensing. I mean really reduced.

And many of the licenses include 'use at home' for another $10 or so.

Thats the only way MS can keep a foothold in the education market, which isnt exactly flush with cash.

Re:Of course they are making money

[rtechie]

Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium do not include upgrade rights from Windows XP Professional, Vista Business, Vista Enterprise, and Vista Ultimate do. For the purposes of "downgrading" to XP Professional, you need upgrade rights.

So the cost of "downgrading" Vista is really the cost of UPgrading Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium to Vista Business.

This is typical. There are bulk licensing agreements and site licenses where this doesn't apply.

I'm Confused

[SemiSpook]

For something that was readily available not less than a year ago (do you really think that all those unsold XP CDs just vanished into thin air), it makes absolutely no sense to me that people should be charged EXTRA to use something that to many people and organizations is still considered a valued piece of software.

Then again, this is Microsoft we're talking about. It's not supposed to make any sense. Carry on.

Re:I'm Confused

[sexconker]

I'm confused.

Do you somehow think that buying Vista gives you a free copy of XP?

Does buying a PS3 give you a free PS2?

Does buying the bluray of Terminator 2 give you a free copy of the original?

Re:I'm Confused

[leromarinvit]

something that to many people and organizations is still considered a valued piece of software.

There's the problem. People consider XP more valuable than Vista and are willing to pay extra for it, so they charge extra.

Re:I'm Confused

[TheCycoONE]

Does buying a PS3 give you a free PS2?

Yes?

Re:I'm Confused

[corsec67]

Do you have to buy a PS3 to get a PS2?

Do you have to buy Terminator 2 to get Terminator 1?

Re:I'm Confused

[SemiSpook]

No, I'm not implying that.

I just don't get why you'd pay more for something OLD that is expected to be there when you take it out of the box.

As I said, those discs didn't magically vanish when Microsoft said they were going to stop support. That's where I'm pointing out the confusion. Then again, the model appears to me to be used as a disincentive to get XP over Vista.

If the people want it, they shouldn't be penalized for it, that's all I'm saying. They'd still be able to get residuals because of the "OMG I can still get XP from this PC company!" reaction it'd generate, along with depleting the excess stock of now obsolete OS discs.

I also said that this is MS we're talking about. It's not supposed to make sense.

Re:I'm Confused

[sexconker]

Nope.
Backwards compatibility is incomplete (99%) in the original, and all currently-produced versions do NOT have backwards compatibility.

Re:I'm Confused

[hairyfeet]

That is why if MSFT wants to pull this "no profits" BS then how about giving us choice, huh? Are they afraid of the free market? The market has spoke and they DO NOT want Vista. So instead of creating a situation where consumers are "damned if you do and damned if you don't" put XP back on the shelves. I'm sure most consumers would rather go buy a nice disc from Staples or Best Buy than deal with "downgrade rights" and all that other crap.

But of course we all know it isn't about "rights" or the free market. it is about MSFT force feeding customers a Vista Business license for the "privilege" of getting rid of Vista and going back to a decent OS, which is what XP has been since SP2 and is really nice since SP3. And what about the home users? I just had a home user chunk a copy of Vista Premium in the trash after not being able to get it to work worth a damn with his PC, only to schedule an appointment to hand me $120 for putting XP Home on. Why shouldn't HE have "downgrade rights?" Do they honestly think the home users actually WANT Vista? This whole damned thing since XP sales "ended" has smelled like a "wink wink, nudge nudge" kind of deal, where the OEMs get to push an OS that folks will buy, MSFT gets the extra cash from Vista Business licenses even when all they get is XP, and as usual the consumer gets screwed. The whole thing IMHO stinks.

Re:I'm Confused

[sexconker]

No, and you don't need to buy Vista to get XP.
Choose a vendor that still sells XP.
Buy XP separately.
Use your old XP license on your new computer.

XP Home is $90.
Vista Home Basic is $90.

If a vendor has entered into an agreement with MS that states that all PCs must ship with Vista, then that was their fault. If they want to offer XP, for free or for an additional fee, that is their choice.

There is no rock or hard place.

Re:I'm Confused

[Caue]

that doesn't make any sense at all. so if I go to a retail store and ask for a 2007 corvette and all they have is a brand new, I should buy the new one and they would trade it for me? If you don't like it, don't buy it. But it's their product and it's your choice. WINDOWS IS A PRODUCT, NOT A RIGHT!

Re:I'm Confused

[MightyYar]

Do you have to buy Terminator 2 to get Terminator 1?

If you bought Terminator 2 with the assurance from Universal Pictures that you could in fact get a free copy of Terminator 1, only to take it to the store and be told that it would cost you $20.

That's why people are pissed.

Re:I'm Confused

[RedHelix]

But they make sure to ship it with a Vista sticker anyway, just to make it that much more of an annoyance when you want to wipe the crapware-laden drive and build a ghost image from scratch.

Man I hate OEMs

Re:I'm Confused

[SerpentMage]

There is computer price X, which includes the price of OS Y.

Thus when you buy a Vista machine you pay X + Y.

When you downgrade you are removing Y, and replacing it with Y1.

The question becomes what is the price of Y1? Answer Y1 > Y since you are paying to have a downgrade.

The thing is that X + Y = Y1 + X, ideally...

But what I think is happening is that the computer makers are saying with the downgrade you get X + Y + Y1. However the client has clearly stated that they want to downgrade and hence want to buy only X + Y1, and thus should not be charged with Y.

YET again Microsoft screws it up... Microsoft has become the laughing stock of the PC industry!

Re:I'm Confused

[sexconker]

What vendor promised a free copy of XP?
What vendor didn't deliver?

What involvement does MS have in the fulfillment of contracts between vendors and customers?

Re:I'm Confused

[tripdizzle]

I am guessing the charge is not exactly for XP itself, its the additional work that needs to be done to put XP on a machine that already has Vista on it.

Re:I'm Confused

[Bearhouse]

I'm confused.

Do you somehow think that buying Vista gives you a free copy of XP?

No, but if I specified XP instead of Vista, (as is the case here), I certainly would not expect to pay more for it, especially as the 'new' stuff is supposed to better and thus more expensive.

Re:I'm Confused

[RoFLKOPTr]

Do you have to buy a PS3 to get a PS2?

Do you have to buy Terminator 2 to get Terminator 1?

No, but the thing is that the OEMs and Microsoft don't WANT to sell XP anymore... but there's a market for it. It's called supply and demand. Of course, there's as much supply as they feel like making, but if the demand is high, they're gonna raise the price as high as they can get away with... and so far looks to me like they can get away with the high prices, seeing how people keep paying the downgrade fees.

This lawsuit is a total joke, and if this woman wins it I will have even more concern for the current state of our judicial system that I already have. If she doesn't want to pay for her software, she should switch to Linux... that's the Slashdot philosophy anyway, isn't it?

Re:I'm Confused

[corsec67]

This lawsuit is a total joke, and if this woman wins it I will have even more concern for the current state of our judicial system that I already have. If she doesn't want to pay for her software, she should switch to Linux... that's the Slashdot philosophy anyway, isn't it?

The issue isn't that the woman doesn't want to pay for XP. She wants to get XP without paying for an unrelated and exta OS.

The issue is that she doesn't want to be forced to buy something that she isn't going to use to buy something she does want.

The problem is that netbooks come with XP and you don't have to pay for Vista. Notebooks are also offered with XP, but she would have to buy a copy of Vista as well.

Re:I'm Confused

[Volante3192]

Your analogy breaks down in that we can go to a used car dealership and buy an 07 Corvette there.

You can't reintroduce OEM XP licences into the wild that are no longer in use.

It's like going to that above used car dealership, asking for an 07 Corvette and being told "Oh, Corvette has asked us to pull those all from the streets, so they all get cubed at the scrapyard now."

Re:I'm Confused

[Swift Kick]

When Sony advertises the PS3, it specifically states in the ad or the box whether that specific model will or not it will be able to play PS2 titles. If you want PS2 functionality, you either pay extra for a model that is backwards-compatible (*gasp*) or you will have to buy a PS2 as well.

When you buy Terminator 2, you're getting Terminator 2 and nothing else, unless you're buying a bundle that includes the previous version.

Likewise, when a person buys a PC with Vista, that's exactly what they're getting. If they want a PC with XP, they either pay extra for whatever reason the manufacturer seems to think it's valid, or they're free to go get their own copy and install it. No one is forcing you to buy it; you're free to decide not to buy it at all.

There are extra costs incurred by the PC manufacturer when they have to make changes to their 'assembly-line' model. It's no accident that you can get systems for dirt cheap these days, and this means they have to cut costs in any way possible, including limiting the number of steps during assembly, OS installation, etc. Having to make a change to this process results in extra costs, which obviously will be passed on to the consumer (duh). Whether these costs are justifiable or not doesn't matter; you either pay them, or you don't.

You don't want a PC with Vista? Fine, don't buy it. You want the PC but with XP? Fine, buy it with Vista and install it yourself, *or* pay the extra $50 or whatever and have them do it for you. You were given the choice, don't bitch about it.

What's with this entitlement attitude that's been creeping up allover the place? When will consumers understand that they're not entitled to anything other than what's specifically agreed to as part of the specific items or goods being sold?

I wonder if we should also be able to sue dumbasses like this lady for bringing frivolous lawsuits to the courts and taking up valuable time and tax dollars that could be better used for more relevant things, like going after actual criminals.

Re:I'm Confused

[Vancorps]

Actually yes, buying Vista does give you a license to XP Pro, or 2000 Professional, or NT4 Workstation.

The problem is that Microsoft doesn't maintain this policy on the home side of the fence. If you buy a business OS you can downgrade all you want which is why my volume license for Windows includes keys for even Windows 2000. NT4 is considered EOL so they don't give you keys for it anymore.

Microsoft just needs to do the same thing on the home side to be consistent. These days companies all over seem to want to make money by nickel and diming customers through licensing. I just got off the phone with VMWare and their licensing model is so screwed up they didn't give me what I ordered despite them producing the quote to begin with based on my specifications. I've had the same thing happen with Oracle, and NetApp. It makes good financial sense from a bean counter perspective but it means that you now have to have dedicated licensing personnel which is annoying to say the least.

Re:I'm Confused

[Caue]

they do that to the '07 engines in any foundry. Just clean them and throw them back into the oven, keeping a few bunch to sell as parts (MUCH more expensive).

Re:I'm Confused

[claytonjr]

Does buying a PS3 give you a free PS2?

Yes?

Only when you purchase the older 60 gig model.

Re:I'm Confused

[hardburn]

Does buying Half Life 2 get me Half Life 1? Oh, wait, it actually did.

The PS3/PS2 example demonstrates a problem inheirent with physical products. Computer code doesn't have these limitations, except via a legal fiction. It costs Microsoft nothing to let you use your Vista license on XP, so why not just do it? As Valve demonstrates, you can increase your sales by throwing it in as one big bundle, so it makes good business sense to do so.

Re:I'm Confused

[Xtravar]

The issue isn't that the woman doesn't want to pay for XP. She wants to get XP without paying for an unrelated and exta OS.

The issue is that she doesn't want to be forced to buy something that she isn't going to use to buy something she does want.

Just because she can't get XP pre-installed for no additional cost from a vendor of her choosing...

...does not mean that she can't find a different vendor or build her own machine with XP.

There are copies of XP out there - buy them! If Dell were her only method of getting a computer with XP, that would be one thing. But it's not - there are alternative options.

Re:I'm Confused

[agnosticanarch]

Does buying a PS3 give you a free PS2?

Yes?

Only if you buy a specific model of the PS3. Some of the older ones... yes. The newest models... not so much.

Read more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3#Retail_configurations

~AA

Re:I'm Confused

[vadim_t]

You don't want a PC with Vista? Fine, don't buy it.

Right, so I won't

You want the PC but with XP?

Yes

Fine, buy it with Vista and install it yourself,

No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

*or* pay the extra $50 or whatever and have them do it for you.

Neither. It doesn't make sense that I have to pay extra for the ability of using something older, which by all logic should be cheaper.

You were given the choice, don't bitch about it.

I wasn't given enough choice, and yes, I will bitch about it until satisfied, because that's the only way things get done these days. See the recent Facebook TOS change. Have enough people complain about it loudly enough, and things do get done.

The manufacturers aren't doing me a favour by allowing me to buy their products. I'm doing them a favour by choosing their product and paying a price, and no, I'm not going to comply with arbitrary demands and act as if their offerings were gifts from heaven.

Re:I'm Confused

[JasterBobaMereel]

It's software... not a physical object ... if fact it's not even that it's a licence ....

The costs charged for the downgrade are for someone taking the PC off the production line re-imageing the drive to the XP image and re-testing it with the XP testbed .... time is money and this takes extra time

Microsoft *may* not see anything from this at all ...? -1xVista +1xXP =~ 0

Re:I'm Confused

[TheRaven64]

If a vendor has entered into an agreement with MS that states that all PCs must ship with Vista, then that was their fault

Unless, of course, the only way in which you are allowed to sell Vista as an OEM is if you stop selling XP. Then it's an antitrust violation from Microsoft.

Re:I'm Confused

[sexconker]

It certainly does cost MS money to let you use XP.
There are tons of support and administrative costs involved.

Until XP reaches EOL, it isn't free in any sense.

Regardless, MS wants, for whatever reasons, people to use Vista. As such, their licensing efforts are focused on Vista. They have NOT pulled the rug out from under people who want XP. In fact, they extended the kill date and OEM bundling date multiple times.

The "issue" is with people expecting to get something for free. That's not part of the deal. Even if there was no cost involved (and there is, on Microsoft's side as well as on the OEM side) it wouldn't be the case.

A key limitation with "computer code" that does NOT apply to physical goods is the copyability. Who's to say that the XP license would be used INSTEAD of the Vista license? It may very well be used in addition to it. MS and OEMs are not retarded, thus, it is not free.

Re:I'm Confused

[sexconker]

Which is obviously not the case, as vendors still offer XP.

Nice try though.

Re:I'm Confused

[sexconker]

You mean +1 Vista +1 XP.
That's two valid licenses floating out there, expect them to be used.

If Dell sold systems with Vista and gave you XP for free, people would be exploiting that like there was no tomorrow.

~$500 PC (with monitor!) with Vista for a relative.
XP license for ebay.

Re:I'm Confused

[ThatsNotPudding]

Does buying a PS3 give you a free PS2? Yes?

Provided that stealing underwear is one of the steps.

Re:I'm Confused

[Swift Kick]

No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

Then don't buy it, period. If you're so adamant about not touching Vista in any way/shape/form, and all manufacturers offer are systems with Vista pre-installed, then I guess you won't be purchasing a system then. That's the choice you have.

It doesn't make sense that I have to pay extra for the ability of using something older, which by all logic should be cheaper.

How is it illogical?
It is not uncommon to find 'older' things to be more expensive than 'new' things for whatever reason. For example, original IBM Model M keyboards are quite pricey, even though they're *old*. You can get a Model M clone from a number of different places (cheap too), but it's not quite the same, so people will still pay a premium for the original Model M.
There's dozens of other examples such as this one out there, just look for them.

I wasn't given enough choice, and yes, I will bitch about it until satisfied, because that's the only way things get done these days.

You were given the choice to buy it as is, pay extra to get it 'your way', or not buy it at all. I'd say there is ample room there to make a choice.

The manufacturers aren't doing me a favour by allowing me to buy their products. I'm doing them a favour by choosing their product and paying a price, and no, I'm not going to comply with arbitrary demands and act as if their offerings were gifts from heaven.

You're wrong when you think in terms of 'allowance'.
Manufacturers are not allowing you to do anything; they make a product and offer it for sale, and it's your choice to buy it or not. If the product does not meet your needs, expectations, or ideology, you're free to buy a different product, not buy anything at all, or go build your own.
Manufacturers are in business to make a profit, not to respond to every whiner's whim.
That's what people seem to be forgetting.

Re:I'm Confused

[PitaBred]

Windows is a monopoly. That means they have to play by different rules. If Microsoft didn't dictate things to suppliers, I'd agree with you. The problem is that they make unilateral moves and expect everyone to roll over. A company that was not a monopoly could not do that, they would have to provide a product that their customers wanted, rather than tell the customers what they wanted and say "fuck off" if they don't like it. Microsoft locked people into its proprietary file formats and protocols, and it's now reaping what it sowed with those moves.

Re:I'm Confused

[RoFLKOPTr]

The issue isn't that the woman doesn't want to pay for XP. She wants to get XP without paying for an unrelated and exta OS.

Welp. Sorry, but that's the way they're selling it. I'd like to get a PS3 without the hard drive so I can put my own in and save $50, but they don't sell them that way. Should I sue Sony?

Re:I'm Confused

[mysticgoat]

XP Home is $90.
Vista Home Basic is $90.

And elsewhere in this discussion, it is mentioned that the Vista Home Package does not include a right to downgrade to WinXP. It needs to be upgraded to a Vista Business Package (at a cost of apx $100), which can then be downgraded to WinXP.

Re:I'm Confused

[Chosen Reject]

Ignoring all the other issues from the article and this thread, I just want to point out one thing that many people seem to be having here.

I certainly would not expect to pay more for it, especially as the 'new' stuff is supposed to better and thus more expensive.

The price of an item is not related to its newness. In fact, it is also not even related to its betterness. It is in direct relation to how much people are willing to pay for it. If Subway came out with a new sandwich which was nothing more than their own Meatball Marinara but laid the habanero's on really thick, people would not pay more for it simply because it is new. Sure, some people might find it to be better, but most people would rather have the older stuff than to burn themselves. And if they saw their options as being limited, they might even pay more to downgrade to the non-habanero version.

Re:I'm Confused

[k_187]

Yes, he's assuming that Y should equal Y1 without giving any reason why they should be.

Re:I'm Confused

[jedidiah]

Just because she can't get XP pre-installed for no additional cost from a vendor of her choosing...

OK then: name ONE hardware vendor that YOU personally trust enough to buy from that also sells what this woman wants.

This is the great OEM runaround. Sure there are small mom & pop operations that
effectively fall through the cracks of Microsoft's monopoly. However, they tend
to be small operations that may not be in business next month.

If Microsoft is telling people that they can either sell Vista or XP, then
there are bound to be few large established vendors selling XP anymore.

Re:I'm Confused

[vadim_t]

Then don't buy it, period.

So as I said, I don't. XP is what I want, but I refuse to get it by getting Vista first. The only option I will go with is "XP, at a normal price"

How is it illogical?
It is not uncommon to find 'older' things to be more expensive than 'new' things for whatever reason. For example, original IBM Model M keyboards are quite pricey, even though they're *old*.

That one is easy, there's demand, there's little supply, and you can't make an original Model M without restarting whatever factory made them, which may have already been demolished.

Software is much different. Pressing an XP CD and pressing a Vista CD has the same cost, measured in cents. Preloading XP is unlikely to be more expensive than preloading Vista, especially since it's something that's been done for many years, and every manufacturer by now will have the process fully set up and debugged.

By all logic, XP should be cheaper.

The only reason it isn't is because Microsoft wants to sell people Vista, regardless of what they want. But that has nothing to do with the economics of CD pressing and distribution.

Manufacturers are not allowing you to do anything; they make a product and offer it for sale, and it's your choice to buy it or not. If the product does not meet your needs, expectations, or ideology, you're free to buy a different product, not buy anything at all, or go build your own.

That's how it used to work. Things aren't like this anymore.

These days, the customers aren't independent anonymous people who show up at a shop and make an independent choice about which flavor of jam to buy. These days they go on forums, communicate and organize, and when they figure out that they can pressure a manufacturer to get what they want, they go and do that, because in large enough numbers it works.

You seem to fail to realize that what you say enables this. I can say "I won't buy Vista, and won't buy XP at an extra price". For me individually this means that if MS doesn't offer the option I want, then yes, I go and use something else instead. But when it turns out that it's not just me, and there are millions of people who want the same, suddenly they become strong enough to force MS bend to their demand, because when there are that many people who want something, some of them turn out to be in control of important contracts, some willing enough to start a lawsuit, some to make their opinions widely heard, and so on. And collectively, all that, might well cost more than giving people what they want.

Manufacturers are in business to make a profit, not to respond to every whiner's whim.

Manufacturers are in the business to respond whims shared by millions of whining potential customers, because not doing that endangers their ability to make a profit.

Re:I'm Confused

[MightyYar]

What involvement does MS have in the fulfillment of contracts between vendors and customers?

I'll leave all that stuff to the courts... fact is that customers are being assured that they can downgrade to XP and then getting charged for the privilege... that's why they are pissed. If you take off your geek-goggles for a moment and try to read this mess, you'll see why people are confused and mad. I mean, let me get this straight, to get XP I buy Vista Business or do I need Ultimate? Oh, wait, I need Vista Business BONUS or Vista Ultimate BONUS? I mean, jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, this is some marketing gone wrong...

Re:I'm Confused

[Caue]

I agree partially. Since microsoft doesn't control the supply chain nor the whole technology in OS's, it's called a market monopoly, insted of a full monopoly.

People still want, believe it or not, the best product. And microsoft has it. At least for the everyday consumer.

Still, my grandpa bought, by mistake, a Linux installed laptop. Can't say that he loved it. But the option was there.

If I had the same opportunities that were created by Microsoft over the years, I would do exactly the same thing. Create a market, develop it so that everyone relate to your product as the ultimate or the only way. That is just good business. And now, with PC prices getting in their lowest marks ever, you can realize that all the scare tactics used by windows haters don't really connect with reality, since they post them on blogs while running macs, linux or other OS's. It's ambiguous because microsoft made a lot of money on the way, not because the product is half baked or require months of research before even installing (like the first linuxes)

I'm not a microsoft lover, I'm a business man. And as a business man, I gotta respect them. They did a hell of a job well done.

Re:I'm Confused

[hardburn]

There's no reason Microsoft can't say "we'll provide this as part of a bundle, but there's no further customer support on it". Or they just pass it to the OEM, which is what they do anyway in off-the-shelf computers.

A key limitation with "computer code" that does NOT apply to physical goods is the copyability. Who's to say that the XP license would be used INSTEAD of the Vista license? It may very well be used in addition to it. MS and OEMs are not retarded, thus, it is not free.

Besides a legal fiction, what's stopping people from doing this anyway? Technical limiations (e.g. DRM) don't stop people from making illicit copies. They're just problematic for ligitimate customers.

Re:I'm Confused

[billcopc]

More like "We have 07 Corvettes, but our contract specifies you need to buy an 08 Corvette, which will stay on our lot, and pay half price for an 07 Corvette which we'll allow you to drive temporarily until you come to your senses."

The dildonic thing is that you don't actually get an XP key when you downgrade, you still have to niggle with the MS rep on the phone to get through manual activation. You don't technically own an XP license even though you paid for one.

Re:I'm Confused

[Tubal-Cain]

The issue is that she doesn't want to be forced to buy something that she isn't going to use to buy something she does want.

It's like paying the fees to get a driver's license (or at least state ID) so that you can buy booze.

Re:I'm Confused

[Tubal-Cain]

No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

MS refund, anybody? (Not to say that is an easy task)

Re:I'm Confused

[Tenebrousedge]

Incorrect. Vendors offer only Windows Vista licenses, with the exception of certain netbooks.

Some Vista licenses include downgrade rights to XP.

Re:I'm Confused

[kimvette]

You can't reintroduce OEM XP licences into the wild that are no longer in use.

First Sale Doctrine says you can. Windows XP is not a work for hire - even an OEM edition.

Re:I'm Confused

[blueZ3]

They're almost certainly cloning disks, not running the installer from a CD. How is it more difficult to clone an XP CD than a Vista CD?

Re:I'm Confused

[Kalriath]

Unless, of course, the only way in which you are allowed to sell Vista as an OEM is if you stop selling XP. Then it's an antitrust violation from Microsoft.

No it's not. It's Microsoft refusing to sell more copies of their own product, which is perfectly legal. The OEM is still more than capable of selling what stock they have. That's like saying that Nintendo discontinuing the Nintendo64 because the Wii came out is an antitrust violation.

Re:I'm Confused

[dhavleak]

Do you really think that all those unsold XP CDs just vanished into thin air

So MS should hand them out for free? The cost of an OS is related to the cost of printing a CD?

It makes absolutely no sense to me that people should be charged EXTRA to use something that to many people and organizations is still considered a valued piece of software.

Again, if it is considered a valued piece of software why would you expect it to be given away for free?

Then again, this is Microsoft we're talking about. It's not supposed to make any sense. Carry on.

Have you factored in the cost of maintenance for the OS such as releasing QFEs, security updates, maintaining KB articles, etc. etc.? While there is an entire team working on Windows 7, there will be another parallel organization within MS that continues to work on sustained engineering for Vista, and yet another that works on sustained engineering for XP. Do you think MS should continue to fund those teams without expecting to get any revenue for the product they support?

Re:I'm Confused

[Kalriath]

Except for a few niggling problems - one of which is that there is actually an explicit contractual agreement for OEM products (it's called the System Builder Agreement). If you don't agree to it, you aren't even allowed to buy the product. And if you do agree to it, you're meant to require it further down the chain too.

Re:I'm Confused

[Tweenk]

The critical difference is that Nintendo is not a monopoly player, so this analogy fails.

Re:I'm Confused

[kimvette]

I purchase OEM windows from MA LABS all the time along with the system builder tools, and have never, ever signed the OEM agreement with Microsoft, and my company never will because the agreement is wholly one-sided. Why should I give Microsoft the right to enter my premises at their will? Fuck that - even though they'll find only F/OSS on most of the systems, and MSDN software on non-production/testing systems.

However, even if I/my company were to agree to those terms, the folks I sell systems with Windows preinstalled to retain their first sale doctrine right to resell unused/retired Windows seats. They are commodity goods, not works for hire.

Re:I'm Confused

[msuarezalvarez]

I love how Aero is in the "efficiency and productivity" part of the table

Re:I'm Confused

[tepples]

Do you have to buy a PS3 to get a PS2?

Do you have to buy a Wii to get a new GameCube? Yes. Do you have to buy a Nintendo DS to get a new GBA? Yes.

Do you have to buy Terminator 2 to get Terminator 1?

Until eight days ago, one did have to buy Back to the Future 3 in order to get 1 or 2.

Re:I'm Confused

[tepples]

If the product does not meet your needs, expectations, or ideology, you're free to buy a different product, not buy anything at all, or go build your own.

Go build my own what? If you mean go build my own PC with Windows XP, that hasn't been possible for months. Microsoft is the exclusive lawful supplier of Windows XP Home Edition licenses in the United States, and it declines to supply new copies of Windows XP to people who build their own PCs. Please explain further what you meant by this comment.

Re:I'm Confused

[tepples]

There are copies of XP out there - buy them!

Do you mean used copies? If so, how are people supposed to know that used copies even exist and how to activate them?

Re:I'm Confused

[zapakh]

If you bought Terminator 2 with the assurance from Universal Pictures that you could in fact get a free copy of Terminator 1, only to take it to the store and be told that it would cost you $20.

That, and Universal Pictures neglected to mention that the $20 option applies only to the Terminator 2 Collectors Edition, which will cost you $130 more...

Re:I'm Confused

[mgblst]

Not everything older is cheaper (look at wine, cheese, a million other things).

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean you have a right to it.

Microsoft can do whatever they want, they can charge $1000 for XP if they want to. Sucked in for sticking with the pricks.

Re:I'm Confused

[Darth]

I'm confused.

Do you somehow think that buying Vista gives you a free copy of XP?

If i'm ordering a computer and request xp instead of Vista, i think i'm buying XP. I'm not buying Vista. Why am i paying for both?

However, the "downgrade" terminology that microsoft is apparently using (at least according to the article) is that the license for vista is transferred at no additional cost to cover the installation of XP. So in that case, yes, it does give me a free copy of XP if i don't want the copy of Vista.
(Apparently Microsoft only allows this downgrade option from Vista Business or Vista Ultimate, so opting for a downgrade can significantly increase the cost if you have to upgrade the version of Vista so you can downgrade to XP.)

Does buying a PS3 give you a free PS2?

mine did. I have an original 60 Gig ps3. It has a complete implementation of the ps2 hardware in it.

Of course, if i just want a ps2, i can go buy a brand new one from sony without paying for a ps3. I can also go buy a used one without paying for a ps3. Why can't i do those things with XP?

Does buying the bluray of Terminator 2 give you a free copy of the original?

My copy did not. However, Artisan entertainment does not offer a licensing program that provides me with the option of converting my Terminator 2 Blu-Ray to a Terminator 1 disc for no additional charge. Microsoft does.

I can also go buy Terminator 1 without buying Terminator 2. I can even buy it used if i want to. Why can't i do those things with XP?

Re:I'm Confused

[rbanffy]

OK. A PS3 gave you 0.99 free PS2's.

Now you can buy a PS3 and a PS2 for the same price you did pay for the PS3 with almost one PS2 built inside.

And you can use both at the same time.

Re:I'm Confused

[yuna49]

Microsoft just needs to do the same thing on the home side to be consistent.

While I generally agree with this post, I'd like to suggest that it costs money for vendors to support XP Home in a world where new computers ship with Vista. Remember that vendors generally provide support for Windows, not Microsoft, so continuing to allow users to purchase XP extends the need for support. OEMs presumably would like to support as few products as possible, so allowing Vista Home users to downgrade to XP imposes additional long-term costs.

I'm not so naive as to ignore the fact that Microsoft's principal motivation for allowing business users to downgrade was the resistance to accepting Vista among corporate IT departments in the first place. Nevertheless I'd bet that business users in general represent a much smaller support cost per unit shipped than do home users.

Re:I'm Confused

[Kalriath]

No it doesn't. Monopoly or not, you are still entitled to discontinue your own products.

Re:I'm Confused

[Almahtar]

Just because she can't get XP pre-installed for no additional cost from a vendor of her choosing...

...does not mean that she can't find a different vendor or build her own machine with XP.

Right. Because everyone knows how to install an operating system. Now they can find vendors that will sell XP machines, but they're rare and often charge more or limit your options for non-vista machines. Maybe it's lack of drivers, not sure. The other option is to buy XP (after they've already bought Vista) and then pay somebody to install it for them (we can't assume they have friends that will do it for free. Plenty of people don't).

There are copies of XP out there - buy them! If Dell were her only method of getting a computer with XP, that would be one thing. But it's not - there are alternative options.

True, but every single option presented takes more time and money than it needs to and some involve buying both Vista and XP licenses, with no intent to use the Vista license. Now if people want to pony up for two versions of Windows on one machine then fine - they want to pony up. But when you make it *so* hard not to buy your product (Vista) that it's far beyond practical for the average person, you're bullying. I can't say there's a law against that, but common sense dictates there should be unless people have non-monopoly alternatives. For many cases (heavy reliance on 3rd party Windows-only apps) there are no such alternatives.

Re:I'm Confused

[Almahtar]

Then don't buy it, period. If you're so adamant about not touching Vista in any way/shape/form, and all manufacturers offer are systems with Vista pre-installed, then I guess you won't be purchasing a system then. That's the choice you have.

LOL. Just how delusional are you if you actually believe what you're saying? Did you read that through at all?

Re:I'm Confused

[Almahtar]

Simple economics example: you sell organic products.

You start with food, and do very well. Everyone loves your food and only your food. They stop buying food from anyone else, and all other food producers go out of business and get other jobs.

So now you want to sell hemlock as well... but it's not selling. Hey, this is ORGANIC hemlock. Now I'm not trying to actually say Vista is to hemlock as XP is to food anymore than to say "people want one but not the other" so don't get me wrong. The analogy only applies as far as "there are LOTS of people that want to buy one and don't want to buy the other".

So you make a rule. You can't buy food unless you buy hemlock too. Now you still have the option of not buying food - just like people have the option of not buying a new computer and subsequently not being able to do their jobs (and subsequently not eating...), but you don't have the option of buying just food. You *must* buy hemlock to get food, and that's where we have a problem. That is leveraging a monopoly.

What makes it easy to get away with is the fact that the law states leveraging a monopoly is illegal if you use it to influence *other markets* and this is still the same market (both are operating systems and you're not gaining new customers), but the substance of the law is that you shouldn't limit consumer choice simply because you have a stranglehold on them, and that's what's happening here. In my food/hemlock analogy it's not a new market - you're selling consumables for sure, only people don't want to consume one and need to consume the other. There is no option other than to buy both. Now you're making more money entirely because people don't have a choice -- but it's not in a different market so it's not obviously illegal under current laws.

Re:I'm Confused

[Almahtar]

That would be a valid argument if it wasn't for the fact that many people have no choice but to buy Windows because of its monopoly status.

If there is a program that is vital to your income that doesn't have alternatives yet (and many niche markets have those), you need a PC with Windows. That means you don't have a choice - you have to get Windows, it only comes from one place, and that place will only give you something you actually choose if you buy something you don't choose.

Many people didn't choose Windows, but their predecessors made it their only option by not bothering to shop around. Now people that actually want choices are paying for that. That's not fair.

Re:I'm Confused

[itschy]

There is computer price X, which includes the price of OS Y.

Is this some apple thing again?

Re:I'm Confused

[tripdizzle]

But they put Vista on all of them already, its an extra step to put XP on, and that is where the extra charges come from.

Re:I'm Confused

[maxume]

The per new user marginal cost on xp is surely tiny. Basically, a little bit of bandwidth (I suppose there are activation costs, but in my limited experience, that doesn't apply to oem installs; I suppose it gets rather muddy in this context). As far as I know, they make money selling support, so it isn't a cost.

Re:I'm Confused

[Swift Kick]

If you mean go build my own PC with Windows XP, that hasn't been possible for months.

Uh what? You gotta be kidding, right?

Microsoft is the exclusive lawful supplier of Windows XP Home Edition licenses in the United States, and it declines to supply new copies of Windows XP to people who build their own PCs.

You might want to check Newegg then.
You can buy as many lawful copies of Windows XP Home Edition for you to install on your own system for $90/each.

Thanks for playing.

Re:I'm Confused

[Swift Kick]

Simple economics example: you sell organic products.

Ok.

You start with food, and do very well. Everyone loves your food and only your food. They stop buying food from anyone else, and all other food producers go out of business and get other jobs.

So... it's somehow my fault everyone loves my food and the other food producers can't compete? Ok, moving on...

So you make a rule. You can't buy food unless you buy hemlock too. Now you still have the option of not buying food - just like people have the option of not buying a new computer and subsequently not being able to do their jobs (and subsequently not eating...), but you don't have the option of buying just food. You *must* buy hemlock to get food, and that's where we have a problem. That is leveraging a monopoly

I'm going to assume by your analogy that you have a pretty negative opinion of Windows or MS by comparing it to hemlock, which makes your analogy inherently biased.

In any case, this is where your analogy starts falling apart.
For it to be closer to this real-life scenario, you'd also have the option of buying just the food, but you must pay a fee to have the hemlock removed or replaced from your shopping cart. I buy the hemlock, and the hemlock growers give me a bulk discount, so I have to get rid of the stock.

However, only about 0.05% of my customers complain about the hemlock being bundled with their groceries and want Skittles instead; the other 99.95% seem to either be happy or not caring about it. The 0.05% of complaining customers don't really make a dent in the books, since the hemlock growers discount more than makes up for those 'lost' customers.

If instead of the hemlock you want Skittles, I have to charge you for the Skittles (I don't get the same bulk discount from the Skittles source), and for the cost of removing and storing or disposing of the hemlock.
Of course, you can always grow your own organic food, or open your own market and have people come and buy food from you.

Ultimately, PC makers can't seem to make money on systems with Linux installed. It just doesn't seem like there is enough demand for it. MS provides incentives to manufacturers to pre-install their OS in new systems, so of course the PC makers will bundle it with their systems.
MS and the PC makers are not telling you what you can and can't run after you buy it. You can always install something else afterwards.

Re:I'm Confused

[Allador]

It actually is, if you have the hardware to run it smoothly.

It makes for a much more stable desktop, that doesnt tear, lock up, or have as many issues as XP. Plus it doesnt get stuck or stutter nearly as much as XP did under load (though that could be more to do with their IO scheduler).

Again, if you have the hardware for it, its a much better experience, stability, smoothness, and speed wise, than XP was, especially when the machine is under heavy load.

Re:I'm Confused

[Allador]

No he means new copies. Spend 60 seconds of research on newegg or google before asking questions that you could have answered for yourself.

Re:I'm Confused

[Allador]

Did you not read the post of the person you responded to?

Buy a maching without an OS.

Buy XP Home or Pro off newegg.

Install Operating System.

Profit!

This couldnt possibly be simpler.

If what you're suggesting is that the Universe, Lenovo and Microsoft should, out of the kindness of their hearts, change their entire business models to make that one person happy and save her 2 hours of installing XP for herself or paying some punk kid to do it for her, then you're really not living in the same world as the rest of us.

The universe does not owe it to this lady to make everything easy or cheap for her.

I also cant go to Mercedes and buy a brand new production of a car they made 20 years ago, though I'd like one. Does that mean I should sue them? ...

This is really such a sad discussion, but its like watching a train wreck, its hard to look away.

Re:I'm Confused

[Allador]

Software is much different. Pressing an XP CD and pressing a Vista CD has the same cost, measured in cents. Preloading XP is unlikely to be more expensive than preloading Vista, especially since it's something that's been done for many years, and every manufacturer by now will have the process fully set up and debugged.

That is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I've read all night.

There are huge quantities of ancillary costs associated with selling a retail or channel product internationally.

Support, marketing, logistics, production (yeah, surprise, it will cost MS more than twice as much to press Vista AND XP CDs as it would to make just Vista, due to administrative overhead, contract negotiations, logistics, inventory, etc), channel relations, OEM & IHV support, etc.

It just goes on and on like that. People who make statements like you did make it obvious they've never been in any sort of senior position of responsibility in a software company, or owned one, because these comments hugely reflect an ignorance of the realities of business.

To sell at the scale of MS, it is obscenely more expensive to sell two different generations of a product simultaneously, rather than one.

Re:I'm Confused

[Allador]

Except it doesnt really work that way in real life.

If you are actively selling/producing a product, then there is an implied expectation of support, both of the 'someone to call' variety, and the 'my hardware should have drivers for it' variety.

Not to mention the gargantuan cost of testing for compatibilities, regressions, etc, for every actively sold product you have in the field.

My point is that its nice to say 'just give it away, no support', that doesnt work in the real world. Aside from the expensive practicalities I outlined above, it could create an actual legal liability for MS.

There's a reason software companies abandon older products. It's not (purely) because they're money grubbing, Dr. Evil types, but also because support and maintenance of multiple/older products is hideously expensive.

Re:I'm Confused

[tepples]

You might want to check Newegg then.
You can buy as many lawful copies of Windows XP Home Edition for you to install on your own system for $90/each.

But how would newcomers to Windows know about Newegg? Or do you think newcomers to Windows should just start with Vista?

Re:I'm Confused

[msuarezalvarez]

I really, really hope that none ofthathas anyrthing to to with the theme. Are you saying that if you go back to the classic theme in Vista it gets stuck, stutters, tears, locks up and has issues?

Re:I'm Confused

[Allador]

No, it doesnt have anything to do with the 'theme'. But it does have everything to do with Aero, which in addition to the surface level 'pretty' stuff, is (finally) a real compositing window manager for Windows.

Thats the primary reason for all those improvements I'm talking about.

If you disable Aero, and go back to the standard non-compositing desktop, you're back in the same tech as XP, with its problems that I noted were fixed/improved.

Re:I'm Confused

[Swift Kick]

But how would newcomers to Windows know about Newegg?

If someone is insisting on XP instead of Vista on their computer, I think it is safe to assume they're not newcomers to Windows.
It's also not like Newegg is the only place selling copies of XP Home. Just do a Google search, and you'll see a number of results for Amazon and a number of other retailers selling it.

Or do you think newcomers to Windows should just start with Vista?

I don't know what newcomers should start with. Personally, I think that Vista got a bad rap from the beginning because Microsoft released it before it was an actual finished product. Vista SP1 works pretty well, if one overlooks some annoying things like UAC.
It's a lot easier to use than most Linux distributions out there.

I run Vista64 Ultimate on my desktop, with VMWare guests for Ubuntu 8, Centos 5.2, and FreeBSD. Rock solid, all the time, and I don't have to jump through hoops to have all my hardware recognized. Once you get married and have a family, you realize you just don't have the time to 'tweak this or that' just to get some simple stuff to work, that should work from the beginning.

Re:I'm Confused

[Almahtar]

Well for one it would take most end users I know more than 2 hours to install XP on a new machine that they have no driver disks for, and if they bought it without an OS it's once in a blue moon that it comes with drivers. So if they're not going to pay someone they'll be spending a day.

Two - It also takes time to find a machine at a suitable price and suitable specs that doesn't come with an OS preloaded. The major (IE affordable) vendors don't sell them or limit which ones (usually low end) you can buy without an OS. The small vendors offer less reliable support and higher prices, as well as limited options. The lack of options inherently means it will take much longer to find a suitable machine.

All of this is an unreasonable thing to expect from an average end user - they will either be too intimidated of screwing it up or they'll end up spending hours and hours shopping around and then a long time (or yet more money) paying a geek to install it for them. So it's give up or pony up, and it's not a small fee (in both time and money involved). This is not an absolute propellant, but it's strong enough that it can easily be construed as an unfair one.

The option becomes "don't get a PC" or "get a PC with Vista" in most peoples' eyes because the uninformed employee at best buy says "you can't get it without Vista" or they happen to be more informed than most and understand how to get one without Vista, but the task is too daunting and would put a stop to their already busy and demanding lives for a damaging amount of time.

It's not an unsurmountable barrier, but neither is being a Doctor - most people don't get there.

Re:I'm Confused

[Almahtar]

So... it's somehow my fault everyone loves my food and the other food producers can't compete? Ok, moving on...

Nope, as a matter of fact congrats to the winner in this matter - there is not a problem with having a monopoly by any existing economic model I know of. There's a problem with unfairly leveraging it. You can have all the market share you want - just be fair with it.

I'm going to assume by your analogy that you have a pretty negative opinion of Windows or MS by comparing it to hemlock, which makes your analogy inherently biased.

You seem to miss the part where I said:

The analogy only applies as far as "there are LOTS of people that want to buy one and don't want to buy the other".

So the food/hemlock analogy is explicitly stated to apply only to the demand for one and not the other, and for reference in the sentence before that I also explicitly stated that I was not even implying that XP is to Vista as food is to poison. I was very specific in the scope of the analogy, so your assumption in the face of a direct clarification to the opposite gives me the impression you were expecting to hear something, and believed you did.

Now I completely agree with your points about the bulk discount on hemlock and the lack of cost on non-bulk purchased items and the like -- all that made plenty of sense, and in this analogy you're absolutely right so hat's off to you there, but this is where we verged in logic:

Of course, you can always grow your own organic food, or open your own market and have people come and buy food from you.

At that point I broke out of the analogy realizing it doesn't apply, because people can't make their own Windows. Many people are trying really hard (wine... reactos) but they have to reverse engineer it and navigate a patent minefield with little to no budget for lawyers. So when we realize that (and it's my fault for the imperfection of the analogy in this particular respect) we realize the option (jumping back to the analogy) is that they can't make their own food. They really do HAVE to get it from the guy with the monopoly this case.

Ultimately, PC makers can't seem to make money on systems with Linux installed.

I agree, but I also mentioned in the post you responded to that that's because people need Windows because of 3rd party apps that are Windows only, or (like the Adobe suite) are Win/Mac but they balk at the cost of a Mac.

Re:I'm Confused

[Swift Kick]

At that point I broke out of the analogy realizing it doesn't apply, because people can't make their own Windows.

The original article was about a lady suing because she wanted version X of Windows installed, and the PC maker is bundling version Y, and charging extra to install version X.

What I've been trying to say (which you either missed or I wasn't clear about) is that there are dozens of PC maker out there to choose from, some if which may provide what she wants, and others that don't. If she can't find a PC maker that can give her Windows XP pre-installed, she can pay someone to do it, build her own PC and install whatever she wants, or not buy a PC at all.

There is no reason why she should be suing someone because they don't sell what she wants at the price she wants to pay.
What next, sue a car dealership because the factory stopped offering candy-apple red as a color option in the new models?

Re:I'm Confused

[rtechie]

No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

You are complaining about a problem that does not exist.

Go to one of the many, many, many "white box" vendors that will happily sell you a bare PC. Buy XP at retail and install it. Many white box vendors will sell you an OEM version of Windows XP (perfectly legal to install as long as you buy it WITH the bare PC) so you don't have to pay full price, but you won't have any OEM support (not that that's worth anything). The support for retail versions of Windows *IS* better so you'll have to weigh that in your purchasing decision.

Technically speaking you'll probably end up paying a little more ($30-50) than an OEM with bulk licensing would have paid for Windows XP, but that's it.

Re:I'm Confused

[rtechie]

Microsoft has become the laughing stock of the PC industry!

As opposed to who? Novell? Sun? Most of the other commercial OS vendors have gone down in flames or are going down.

Customization cost

[Onaga]

Maybe their whole production process is customized with a Vista image. Imagine that you now have an employee that needs to yank out the vista hard drive, throw in an xp hard drive, and then have another employee make sure that it is an XP system before it ships out. Not to mention the cost of changing the OS sticker on the laptop...

Re:Customization cost

[eln]

Not to mention the cost of changing the OS sticker on the laptop...

I told Dell it was a bad idea to switch to those new diamond-studded OS stickers, but nooooo, they wouldn't listen.

Re:Customization cost

[jimicus]

Well, probably not with Dell seeing as they build to order unless you buy through the retail channel they're starting to establish.

Perhaps the case that kicked this off was someone who bought through the retail channel?

Re:Customization cost

[berend botje]

They still use the same stickers. They only upgraded the glue to "will-never-ever-come-off" strenght.

I hate those stickers.

Re:Customization cost

[theJML]

Sad to say, that right there is probably the way it works.

Yes Dell builds them to custom spec. but they most likely don't have install images for Every combo of components let alone two sets, one with Vista and one with XP. So they take a base XP image and add the right drivers to it to work. Sure this is a small change, but it's a change and one that dell charges $20 for. Which considering the time added (gathering the right drivers for XP, perhaps changing the way they test features that the system has that older ones don't in XP instead of Vista), It seems pretty petty to argue over $20. If she doesn't like it, then she can order it without an OS (if they still offer that option) and buy her own copy for, oh yeah, more than they would have charged.

Customization always costs somewhere. They just pass that on to the customer. Though in all honesty $20 is a pretty good price for that. The Lenovo price quoted sounds closer to the real amount of work to me.

Re:Customization cost

[Zakabog]

They still use the same stickers. They only upgraded the glue to "will-never-ever-come-off" strenght.

I hate those stickers.

Get a razor blade, slide it between the sticker and the case. If you can keep the precise angle you could leave the sticker completely undamaged possibly with some cosmetic damage to the case (I've done it without damaging the case before.) I used to work in a computer shop and we'd do that if we were swapping out cases on a machine.

Re:Customization cost

[ramsejc]

My experience with XP Downgrades is with Lenovo, HP, and Dell.

Lenovo and HP gave me XP downgrades for free (I did have to cover the shipping, like $8 or something.) They said there was no cost, because the Vista Business and Ultimate EULA grants me permission to downgrade without buying an XP license.

Then, I tried to downgrade a Dell that my friend owns. It has Vista Home Premium, and Dell said the same thing - if it was Ultimate or Business, it would be free, since it is not, I have to buy and install a retail copy of XP. Apparently, the EULA is different when it comes to XP Downgrade rights. Dell also told me they do not even make any XP based restore images for their Vista Home computers. All of their Vista Home PCs have to use a retail XP disc if you want to downgrade.

The other thing that Dell told me was that they entered into an agreement with MS in which they will not give away or make available XP downgrades to customers who purchased a Vista PC prior to fouth quarter 2008, and IIRC, this was regardless of which version of Vista was preloaded.

The part that really makes me mad, is that when she bought the PC, she bought it from Dell directly, not through a retail channel of any kind. I advised her to stick with XP, and the Dell salesman talked her into buying with Vista, saying that she can always downgrade later if she does not like it.

Re:Customization cost

[GIL_Dude]

You want to heat the glue a bit with a lighter first. Not enough to scorch the sticker (the case is a heat sink so it doesn't scorch too easily).

God - I am so old, it was actually part of my early employment to walk around with NEW PRICE TAGS and a lighter to remove old tags and replace them when the price went up. We had to remove them from cellophane packaging, cardboard packaging, you name it. (This was about a year before we got UPC scanners and the only prices after that were on the shelf and not on the product). Anyway, the stickers come off easily with the process you mentioned and adding a little bit of heat.

Re:Customization cost

[jimicus]

and the Dell salesman talked her into buying with Vista, saying that she can always downgrade later if she does not like it.

... and by sheer blind bad luck, wouldn't you know it, that particular sales call wasn't recorded.

Re:Customization cost

[z80kid]

> Maybe their whole production process is customized with a Vista image.

That's what I thought.

Believe it or not, I just chatted with a Dell sales rep. I had heard a little about "downgrade rights", and wanted to know what the procedure was for downgrading it myself.

I was told that the downgrade option came only with Vista business, and it was $99. That price is the same whether I use Vista business, or downgrade myself, or they downgrade for me.

I could understand Dell not wanting to supply two images off the line. But this has nothing to do with that. Upgrading Vista is the only way you can get a license for XP.

Since Dell's price doesn't change (between the business versions), it's obvious MS is behind this. And while it stinks, I can't actually see how it breaks any laws. But then I Am Not An AntiTrust Lawyer. I'm just a guy shopping for a used laptop.

Re:Customization cost

[stastuffis]

Maybe their whole production process is customized with a Vista image. Imagine that you now have an employee that needs to yank out the vista hard drive, throw in an xp hard drive, and then have another employee make sure that it is an XP system before it ships out. Not to mention the cost of changing the OS sticker on the laptop...

I'd also imagine that such a production process could have custom XP deployments for their machines especially when there seems to be a demand for it. I was given an HP laptop with Vista on it as a gift. It took me less than a day to hunt for the drivers and get it running despite it being a bit of a pain. Now why can't a company with much better resources than me alone accomplish this same task much quicker?

The software/computer industry has always gone the way of forced obsolescence. It has guaranteed revenue for quite some time. With Vista, what we are seeing is consumer backlash with this concept. Couple that with the speeds that your average PC has, and other than hardware failure, your average PC consumer shouldn't need an upgrade for years unless their needs increase.

Re:Customization cost

[Allador]

You should definitely counsel your friends not to buy consumer-targeted garbage.

If the like Dell, they should be buying Latitudes, Optiplex's or Precisions.

Just like for HP, dont buy Pavilions, or whatever they call the garbage they sell in Best Buy. Buy the corporate class equipment, most of which nowadays is Compaq labeled.

Thats one of the big 'secrets' of this industry, is that most of what the OEMs are selling in the consumer space is garbage. Lower quality parts, craptastical drivers, tons of adware & other pre-installed garbage.

I had a friend who bought this Toshiba POS laptop. He bought it because it was red and pretty.

It's so freaking terrible that the Function keys dont have native support, you have to be running their 'supreme' driver package for the function keys to work. And it crashes all the time on Vista.

It's just so bad. You'd think they would learn.

But we buy HP Compaq laptops and Dell Optiplex's, Precisions and Latitudes by the truckload (for our customers) and they all just largely work, and come clean, and all have windows discs that come with them.

Re:Customization cost

[Allador]

Either you misunderstood what the sales person was saying, or the sales person was ignorant or lying.

We buy alot of equipment through Dell.

There is a $99 charge if you're moving from Vista Home Premium (w/ no downgrade rights) to Vista Business (w/ downgrade rights).

If you're buying a machine that only comes with Vista Business, then there is no extra cost.

Re:Customization cost

[ramsejc]

I am aware and agree with you on this 'secret of the industry.' I told my friend to buy the Latitude line if she was insisting on Dell. Alas, my friend called Dell and complained that the business class machine did not come in hot pink like the consumer one, and was then talked into buying the consumer model, hot pink with Vista Home Premium. We don't buy Dell at work, period. We had terrible issues with their support, and now we are an Apple/HP/Lenovo shop. We have been HP/Lenovo for a while, buy we are migrating to Apple, as we have stopped fighting things that Just Plain Work (TM). Most of our software is either Terminal Service driven or Web-based now anyhow.

Re:Customization cost

[rtechie]

Mod parent up.

This should be common sense (business class is better than cheap consumer crap), but it isn't.

Last time I bought Dell Inspirons in bulk, 50% were DOA. I bought Optiplex workstations at the same time and about 2% of those were bad. Don't buy consumer-grade anything from Dell or HP. That goes double for Lenovo and Sony.

When talking about "consumer" equipment I'm excluding boutique vendors like Alienware and Falcon Northwest. I am a big fan of such vendors. You get what you pay for.

So making a profit is illegal now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if Microsoft was making money off a so-called downgrade, why is that grounds for a lawsuit? Are companies only allowed to profit from certain product lines now?

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[Abreu]

One more time, with feeling!

Microsoft demands that you pay for the upgrade to Windows Vista Business in order to give you "downgrade rights" to install Windows XP

This is why there's a lawsuit

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[Abreu]

If you don't like being downmodded for flamebaiting and trolling... then quit flamebaiting and trolling!

No one here is disputing Microsoft's right to have a profit. Microsoft would certainly profit if it allowed computer makers to sell either Vista or XP licenses

However, they are requiring you to buy a "Business Vista" license before you can even buy a "downgrade option" for XP

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[moderatorrater]

And why is that illegal? You've answered the question without telling him what he wanted to know.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[jedidiah]

Microsoft is a monopoly.

Whether or not Dell wants to keep selling XP is a choice for Dell. They
should be the party in control here. Beyond the ability to get XP from
Microsoft, Microsoft shouldn't have any say in the matter.

This is why the "car with square wheels" analogy doesn't work.

Any automaker that decides to be too much of an ass has to worry
about a planetfull of competitors taking up the slack.

Ultimately, there should be NO discriminatory pricing for Microsoft
products and any vendor should be free to resell it as they see fit
without any fear of retribution from Microsoft. Dell shouldn't get
any better (or worse) treatment than Lenny's Cottage Computers.

Vista and XP should be like the tires on a car.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[moderatorrater]

Microsoft is a monopoly.

Who's quickly losing that status. Mac's are catching up and Linux distros are *gasp!* actually usable now. Let them engage in these types of business practices while they're at their most vulnerable in decades and they'll learn what the free market's all about.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[Bob-taro]

Whether or not Dell wants to keep selling XP is a choice for Dell. They should be the party in control here. Beyond the ability to get XP from Microsoft, Microsoft shouldn't have any say in the matter.

IIRC, the courts have upheld MS's right to make these kinds of deals before. Besides, why shouldn't people pay more for XP than Vista? Apparently, XP is the better product.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[gad_zuki!]

>Microsoft is a monopoly.

Fine, but the findings of the court do not limit MS from doing this. Its not illegal. Last I checked this was a free market capitalist system and MS was not owned by the government. You may not like that, but MS can do this.

Instead people make up rights for themselves and whine. Im sick of calling any action illegal when it is actually not.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[Almahtar]

They're only allowed to profit from a free market, and a free market requires choices. Remove the choices and you remove the freedom. People can still choose XP sure, but they have to pay for Vista first, which means they can't choose not to buy Vista to get XP, so they have the choice of buying Vista or buying XP and Vista, or switching to a platform that likely doesn't yet have the one damn program they need to do their jobs, making it useless to them.

And if you think they can buy XP without buying Vista keep in mind that XP is only available to OEMs now, and the OEMs that still offer XP machines either charge (enough that you may as well have bought Vista) more for them or are really small shops that can't offer the same guarantees that the large shops offer: in other words a big enough risk that monetarily you may as well have paid a lot more.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[Allador]

Microsoft is a monopoly.

That word doesnt mean what you think it means. I think what you mean to say is that the US government found Microsoft to be in violation of anti-trust statutes by tying products together in a market where they had a dominant position. The EU has also found MS to have abused their dominant position in a few situations, but that is still ongoing, and almost exclusively also about tying.

There is no magical hand-waving definition of 'monopoly' that means what you seem to think it means.

MS may have a dominant position in the desktops & laptops OS market, but they're far from the only player. There is a boutique player that is roughly the same price in the midrange and up segment. There are a ton of free/open-source products that compete and are available with or without support, through a commercial or not through a commercial product.

So its not like MS is even the only choice. Or even the only reasonable choice.

So what was it you were trying to say again?

Whether or not Dell wants to keep selling XP is a choice for Dell.

Yes, that is correct and is how it works now. Dell has a choice to sell XP under the creator of XP's terms, or not at all.

They should be the party in control here.

Yes, they are in control. They can choose not to sell the MS products, or sell it on the terms that MS dictates, modified by the restrictions placed on them by the US government.

Beyond the ability to get XP from Microsoft, Microsoft shouldn't have any say in the matter.

That is precisely the context by which MS has a say in the matter. XP will let them sell the product that MS created and owns, and has chosen to end-of-life, only in certain circumstances.

Given that MS created that product, and has sold and supported it for 6+ years now, that is entirely within their rights.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[Allador]

so they have the choice of buying Vista or buying XP and Vista, or switching to a platform that likely doesn't yet have the one damn program they need to do their jobs, making it useless to them.

I think you have some really inaccurate misconceptions of what a free market is.

A free market does not guarantee choice to be free of marginal costs. A free market does not guarantee you the right to get whatever you want from whomever you want, at whatever price you want.

A free market allows supplies to enter or leave a market at will. Microsoft has chosen to have XP leave the market. They are under no obligation to sell you something they dont want to, or to make it easy for you if they do.

And if you think they can buy XP without buying Vista keep in mind that XP is only available to OEMs now

And newegg. And tigerdirect. And so on and so forth.

Re:So making a profit is illegal now?

[Almahtar]

A free market does not guarantee choice to be free of marginal costs. A free market does not guarantee you the right to get whatever you want from whomever you want, at whatever price you want.

Absolutely correct

A free market does not guarantee choice to be free of marginal costs.A free market does not guarantee you the right to get whatever you want from whomever you want, at whatever price you want.

Also absolutely correct. But what I'm arguing here is that it's not a marginal cost. It's a very significant cost - up to double in some cases, more in others. That's not marginal -- and a very large non-marginal price difference, while not a literal barrier to purchase, is a practical enough one in enough cases that the choice is just a token gesture. It's not a feasible choice, and nobody will choose it without making great sacrifice. If that discrepancy between the feasibility of the choices is introduced by an entity that has power over both options we have a very unlevel playing field.

PC Makers know people don't want Vista

[erroneus]

While it is possible that PC makers are capitalizing on what people don't want, I find it is more likely that Microsoft has a lot to do with encouragement to include/install Vista and/or discouragement to install/include Windows XP.

I suspect all that needs to be revealed is the ways in which Microsoft influences this activity.

Re:PC Makers know people don't want Vista

[Allador]

I suspect all that needs to be revealed is the ways in which Microsoft influences this activity.

There's nothing to be revealed, its as simple as simple can be.

Microsoft has chosen to stop selling XP.

Microsoft has chosen to given downgrade rights for business customers as a courtesy to them. Since it was only intended to address the business market, it is only available on full price business or better versions of the software.

Microsoft has chosen to not offer downgrade rights to the home/consumer users. If they want downgrade, they need to buy the business class products.

Given that MS owns and created XP, and is under no obligation to keep making it available AT ALL to anyone, if they choose to, its on their terms. You always have the choice to not buy it.

When the cost to press the media...

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

...is around $.05 and the development costs have already been sunk, can someone pleeeze explain to me how a $60 downgrade to XP isn't profitable?

Look, Microsoft, I've tried my best. I've been on Slashdot for going on a decade now and I *still* use Windows. I use all the classic excuses, y'know? I like my games. I like it when things just work. I hate the command line. Hell, I even spent an hour last night fiddling with Ubuntu just so a couple of my *NIXy friends would stop giving me the stinkeye, and even though it took me nine reboots to get the goddamned CD out of the drive I *STILL* went back to XP, just to hear that familiar bootup chime. But y'know what? This kind of shit is getting harder and harder to defend. Seriously. Pick your battles, you jackoffs. Those of us who keep drinking the Kool-Aid are starting to eyeball Mother McGee's Homemade Colon Tonic, if you get my meaning.

Re:When the cost to press the media...

[Dynedain]

Because MS doesn't get the $60, the OEM does. MS is saying the small fraction of that $60 they see isn't even enough to cover the admin costs of licensing.

Re:When the cost to press the media...

[SerpentMage]

I hear you...

I use Windows as well, and Microsoft has become a laughing stock.... This company has become completely incompetent.

A good friend of mine has said things have changed. I asked how so. Well it used to be Microsoft would produce good stuff, now the management is there to do checkmarks.

I again asked, checkmarks?

Yes managers go there do a product cycle or so and then move on. They are not there to see the crap that they produce. They see the other crap and say, "oh this is how things are better and put in something else, thus adding to the crap." Then when they move on in a few years they get the Microsoft name on their resume and do real things...

There is some truth because NOBODY would work at Microsoft to get vested. The Microsoft share price has been doing nothing for the past 8 years. Thus the only thing you could get is a checkmark on the resume...

Newsflash: Microsoft is indeed a company

[Caue]

Microsoft is in fact a company (And a big one). It's a company that provides products and services for money. People seem to think that's somehow a crime, forgetting that their own revenue come from selling services. So if you are not happy with what you bought and ask something extra, you should be charged. If Microsoft doesn't charge you for it, talk to me and I'll receive something for their work (now that doesn't make any sense, right?)

Damned Creative Accounting

[nurb432]

Can they also prove black is white and avoid being killed by a zebra?

Re:Damned Creative Accounting

[troll8901]

Not sure ... how about general false proofs in math?

Re:Weird

[BluenoseJake]

But if you read TFA, it states that MS is not charging consumers for the downgrade, the OEMs are. Therefore they are not being paid to "not deliver the good" As always, don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good anti-MS rant.

Re:Weird

[FudRucker]

some farmers are paid to NOT grow corn or wheat so the supply is not too high, helps to keep the price of corn and/or wheat higher...

Microsoft Denies Profits In Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

Redmond, WA - Microsoft today denied reports of having profitted from the release and sale of its operating system Windows Vista, saying "It has not performed as well as we'd hoped." In a press conference on Monday, Steve Ballmer, the company's charismatic leader, said "While we'd like to blame the recession on flagging sales of Vista, we realize that it's more likely that Vista is to blame for the recession." A Microsoft employee who declined to give his name, added "Yeah, we put Vista on new guy's machines as a sort of hazing ritual around here. When they eventually beg for XP, we pretend to fire them, it's hilarious!"

No profit in downgrading? I stand to save $150

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer would make a TERRIBLE heroin dealer.

Does anyone believe what MS says anyway?
Seems to me they lie pretty obviously to support lagging sales drives.

"98 is no good, use Millenium, it's better!"
"Millenium? Pfft, use Win2k!"
"Win2k is inherently flawed, XP is better!"
"XP is not good enough, use vista!"
"Vista isn't good enough, use Win7!"

And they make "improvements" every time, but the same subset of design flaws remain? What's wrong with this picture?
Why is the 64 bit heroin so much more expensive than the 32 bit black tar? Don't I get the first hit for free?

Re:Weird

[sexconker]

Many people are paid to not grow corn.

Re:Weird

[Forrest Kyle]

I was just making a general comment. People are paying money to avoid using Microsoft's products. Regardless of who they are paying, my point stands.

Then stop buying it already!

[berend botje]

If you're not happy with Vista (and I can certainly understand that) and you feel you're being winked-and-nudged by the hoops you have to jump through to get XP, maybe you shouldn't still be giving MS the cash.

What if everyone that wanted XP didn't buy Vista to downgrade and instead wrote to MS that they wanted XP without hoops?

Sure, the first few hundred will be laughed at by customer support. The next thousand maybe not so much. And after a hunderd thousand customers called (and sales not made) you can bet XP is all over the shelves again.

Sometimes life can be so easy, but we choose to make it difficult.

Re:Then stop buying it already!

[TheRaven64]

Or just start phoning up the OEMs and say you want a machine running either 'XP or Linux'. I doubt it would take MS very long to start pricing XP very attractively given this choice.

Re:Then stop buying it already!

[tepples]

What if everyone that wanted XP didn't buy Vista to downgrade and instead wrote to MS that they wanted XP without hoops?

That'd be nice, but what operating system should "the first few hundred users [who] will be laughed at" buy and use with their new PCs while waiting for 99,600 more users to complain to Microsoft?

Re:Then stop buying it already!

[hairyfeet]

Well said. And it isn't just that they don't care, it is that they are getting a nice double dip by claiming "Vista sales" on their little PPTs for the investors and charging the OEM(and the customer) for a more expensive Vista Business license they don't want just to get what they DO want. I mean look at tigerdirect BRAGGING about "Xp Pro downgrade rights" in big bold letters in the middle of the page. How big of a clue stick do they need to be hit with?

And while I appreciate the Linux guys thinking that Linux is a choice, it really, really isn't. The consumers want their apps, not the OS. And Linux doesn't run their apps anymore than Vista does, and requires a lot more brains to use. If they have a problem in Windows it can usually be fixed with a driver. With Linux they get "Bring up bash and..." which will never work for 90% of the Windows buying public. CLI is just too hard, too strange, and frankly too powerful to let them use. With Windows everything has a GUI and I can't remember the last time I HAD to use CLI to solve a problem. So for the home users it is get screwed over and get Xp or....well that is pretty much it.

It must be nice to have a monopoly so damned powerful you can give your entire customer base the finger and they have no choice but to take it. We should have split them up when we had the chance. But if they actually bothered to listen to customers we would have ads selling "XP SP3: Reloaded" all over the place and the abortion that is Vista would be kept for high end system as an option instead of the other way around. Personally I hope the Linux guys figure out the Winprinter problem, because if they do instead of telling guys like me on the forums "LOL...get another printer luser!...LOL Winprinters" then maybe we can see Linux get some real market penetration when Vista SE flops. Until then I am stuck just like the customers having to buy MSFT.

Sure, no problem....one more new lie

[fataugie]

The check's in the mail, I'll respect you in the morning and we don't make any money on giving you permission to install a copy of an OS we built 8 years ago and really all we're giving you is a number to use that's tied to that particular hardware and you better pray to God (or whatever flying spagetti monster you pray to) that the hardware doesn't take a shit because then you'll lose your OEM licensing rights because it was tied to the old hardware and there's not a damn thing you can do. /deep breath

Did I mention....don't get me started?

Fixed that for you....

[tnk1]

Microsoft Says No(t As Much) Profit In Vista-XP Downgrades (As We'd Like)

Problem with Bundling

[iYk6]

I think the primary concern people have is that Microsoft is encouraging OEMs to bundle their software in such a way as to force users who want to buy an XP PC from those OEMs to buy Microsoft software twice. Bundling is often something companies do to make a profit by screwing customers, and Microsoft has used bundling in the past to screw customers, and has been slapped for it.

That said, this seems to me like people whining, when they could more easily just shop around for an OEM that doesn't do what they dislike. OEMs are not like cable companies. There are 1000's of OEMs, and chances are slim that you won't find one you dislike with just a little searching.

editions

[petermgreen]

In my experiance when you look at a machine that is availible with various editions of vista and with downgrades to XP the price of a downgrade is usually quite close to the price with the edition of vista it is being downgraded from

The catch is that you can't downgrade home editions of vista. So if you want XP you have to buy vista buisness (or ultimate but that is even more expensive) even if you would have been happy with XP home.

Re:editions

[Almahtar]

The catch is that you can't downgrade home editions of vista.

I think that's the problem we're discussing. If you want XP you have to pay for a business version of Vista, no matter what kind of XP machine you're running. Afterwards you often have the privilege of paying OEM fees (like the $20 dell charge mentioned in the article).

The OEM fees can't be blamed on Microsoft until you realize that Microsoft encouraged OEMs to support Vista only by default and the same goes for hardware manufacturers and their drivers. Then it makes plenty of sense.

Then why not simply ship XP?

[iammani]

Then why dont they start shipping XP? May be there is something else to it, than directly making a profit. May be, they can charge the OEMs more for Vista, since the OEMs can inturn charge the customer extra for downgrades. Guess how much vista would have been worth, if no body could downgrade to XP from vista and XP was available in retail.

Frankly, I dont expect MSFT to do anything that does not directly correlate to immediate profits.

Re:Then why not simply ship XP?

[not already in use]

Frankly, I dont expect MSFT to do anything that does not directly correlate to immediate profits.

Imagine that, a business interested in profits! Judging by the sheer number of similar comments I often see here on slashdot, I can safely assume that slashdot is generally full of tech-savvy morons.

I don't know if you realize this -- I would assume it is implied knowledge, but a business is obligated to be as profitable as lawfully possible to their shareholders and employees. And at least in Microsoft's case, much of that profit is going to a good cause.

Re:Then why not simply ship XP?

[yoshi_mon]

I don't know if you realize this -- I would assume it is implied knowledge, but a business is obligated to be as profitable as lawfully possible to their shareholders and employees.

/facepalm

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1098065&cid=26528905

Re:Then why not simply ship XP?

[Almahtar]

I would assume it is implied knowledge, but a business is obligated to be as profitable as lawfully possible to their shareholders and employees.

(Emphasis mine)

Oh snap. You seem to have missed a detail.

Re:Then why not simply ship XP?

[Allador]

What law are you implying that they broke by only allowing XP downgrades on their business or full price versions?

If Vista was made better!!

[joesucks]

Damn, if people are paying to downgrade it tells a lot about the quality of the product, don't mean to take this discussion back to which OS is better but still it speaks a lot about Vista's under performance.

Cringley talked about M$ profits on his podcast

[RunzWithScissors]

This is a little OT, but Cringley has a blog post/podcast entitled "Bob the Impaler" where he discusses Microsoft's profitability, and how they've developed a structure of hiding profit to fly low on the radar of the Federal Trade Commission. I have a feeling that these unprofitable up/down grades are somewhere in that fat...

Cringely's home page it's about 2/3 down the page.

-Runz

Re:Square wheels

[jellomizer]

Bad example. As "a car" you can choose another car to buy. Also $50 added to the price of the car is no big deal. Espectially as most car buyers bring the price down from the sticker.

I don't know.. Square Wheels I don't want square wheels I may buy it if you take $1,000 of the price and Ill gladly pay $50 for the Round wheel upgrade.

Only certain Vista titles are eligible for down...

[Ruger]

...grade. An XP "downgrade" can only be purchased with a Business or Ultimate version of Vista. So if a customer is looking at a configure-to-order laptop such as with Dell or Lenovo, then in many cases customers have to upgrade their OS from Home Basic or Home Premium in order to get the XP downgrade option.

Is this charging more for XP...in many people's minds, yes. But legally (Full disclosure: IANAL), they are paying for the Vista upgrade, not for the XP downgrade.

They're making money on the marketing

[Suzuran]

For every user that buys a Vista license and then downgrades, MS gets to claim that as a Vista sale. The higher sales numbers serve as marketing copy. It's artificially inflating their sales.

Re:They're making money on the marketing

[Brandybuck]

There just aren't enough individual "downgraders" to make any difference. Businesses who downgrade with Dell aren't starting with Vista, and they're being counted as XP.

Re:There is always a real OS upgrade

[m50d]

"Immune to viruses"? Bollocks. If you were talking about OpenBSD you might have something (although even there I'd question you), but to claim that for OSX is just idiocy.

Dell, STILL, has some 'splainin to do . . .

[essinger]

Not quite correct. FTA:"...when Dell was accused of gouging customers by charging $150 to downgrade a new computer to XP. Dell countered that although it did charge $20 to install XP on the machine, as well as to cover the cost of the additional media, the bulk -- $120 of the $150 -- was the price of upgrading the PC from the standard Home Premium to the more expensive Business edition . . . Well, if you want XP you're SOL, that'll be $120 to 'upgrade' the Vista you want to 'downgrade'.

The cheapest OEM version of XP only cost 109.99 for us mere mortals (you know Dell gets it cheaper)and the difference between that and Home Vista Premium is only 16 bucks. So I don't think Dell is really telling the truth here.

Re:Dell, STILL, has some 'splainin to do . . .

[Tenebrousedge]

They're not selling an XP license, they're selling a Vista license (specifically, Vista Business or Vista Ultimate) with downgrade rights to XP.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:Dell, STILL, has some 'splainin to do . . .

[essinger]

Why is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand. Even the cost of OEM Vista Business is a lot cheaper than Dell is claiming. And that doesn't include subtracting the cost of the Home OEM license. You are still back to a less than $20 difference. This isn't a scheme for MS, as much as a scheme for the vendors.

Re:Dell, STILL, has some 'splainin to do . . .

[rtb61]

Ultimately the Vista downgrade to Xp is a 'LIE'. M$ get's to lie to it's investors about the success of Vista and hide Ballmer's failure. M$ gets to lie to customers about the acceptability of Vista as an OS. M$ get's to cheat on support for XP which is what the customer is really after and even charges a premium for it. M$ get's to lie about what the customers views as a downgrade, clearly from a customer perspective Vista and Windows version 7 are a downgrade from XP and even win2kPRO.

At the very least M$ should be forced to offer all versions of XP and even win2kpro updated, OEM and retail boxes and let the customers decide, as a convicted monopolist it is the only fair remedy.

As far as M$ investors are concerned it is the only reasonable way by which they can gauge Ballmer's failure and how much of the shareholders money was wasted upon Ballmer's failed version of the windows operating system.

Re:Dell, STILL, has some 'splainin to do . . .

[Allador]

as a convicted monopolist it is the only fair remedy

I think you should go back and re-read the history and documentation around that investigation and court case.

MS wasnt convicted of being a monopoly, as that is not illegal (as has been repeated here ad nauseum for years).

MS was convicted of illegally tying their browser to the operating system, given that they had a dominant position in the marketplace.

Thats it. The US government decided they did exactly one thing wrong, and that was to tie IE to the windows OS. Nothing else.

When you go around saying 'convicted monopolist' as though it has any meaning the way you're using it, you're just making it obvious that you dont understand the situation.

Lenovo..

[ryen]

Lenovo charges for the downgrade as well. But they justify it by letting you 'upgrade' back to Vista after you've downgraded, if you should choose to upgrade at a later time. Them giving you that 'option' will cost you $70 a pop.

Re:Weird

[deraj123]

Like the GP said, there is something wrong about an industry where one is paid to not deliver goods.

Profit?

[jetsci]

Who cares if they're making a profit. There is a serious lack of options out there for new consumer level systems. I can't walk into Best Buy without being assaulted with Vista desktops. Sure, there are a FEW Linux netbooks but whats wrong with just selling hardware? I'd love a clean system upon purchase.

Re:Profit?

[Allador]

The problem is that you and the other 6 people that want that arent a big enough market to be worthwhile to companies like Best Buy.

Part your own via newegg, or buy from a smaller whitebox dealer.

Before of after the sale?

[Deathlizard]

The only thing I could think of is that she tried the upgrade after the sale, which would have an added media cost.

According to Lenovo's Self Maintainer program, The R61 XP Pro Recovery CD's (P/N 44Y2596) Retails for $36 even. Labor claim is anywhere between $20 and $70 depending on what you have to replace (Systemboards are $70 for example) and are set by Lenovo at entitlement. If it's a warranty claim, Lenovo reimburses you the labor. The only way Lenovo would reimburse a OS Reinstall is if the Hard drive went bad, which would then cover the recovery media as well as the hard drive and labor associated with the repair.

My guess is that Lenovo charged her for the Media CD's, and added labor and tax to the mix.

If they charged her extra before or during the sale, that makes no sense, unless she was buying a consumer Lenovo (which they don't offer XP on), or was trying to upgrade a thinkpad to XP from Vista Home Basic, which has an extra cost. (XP and Vista business is around the same price, but Home basic is cheaper than either XP or vista. They also do not offer XP home on thinkpads, only XP professional.)

What a crock

[HermMunster]

There's no fucking profit in forcing me to use an upgrade that requires me to purchase more hardware. If I have to buy 2-3 more gigs of ram and I have to have a higher capacity HDD and I have to buy a flash device for readyboost, and I have to buy a better video card, well, that means that my costs are greater than the lack of profit Microsoft experiences.

This is a total crock of shit. Who cares if they make a profit. It's about me. It's not about me doing something for them. They shouldn't have produced such a piece of shit as Windows 7 if they didn't expect to have users desire the stalwart OS that they prefer.

Vista and Windows 7 are the same thing except some security features and a new taskbar. It still isn't worth upgrading.

Re:What a crock

[Malenx]

Windows 7 is fantastic actually. Having beta tested it for a while, I prefer it to my XP rig now. I love using Ubuntu, but I don't cringe when I think my extended family will be using it on their new purchases eventually. At least they'll be getting decent software.

Re:What a crock

[HermMunster]

I have Windows 7 on a computer and though it isn't a high end model it does run Windows 7 well. There were problems getting it up and running. But, there are other issues.

What Microsoft did was remove a bunch of security and that made it faster and they replaced the old task bar with another that has some features that you would find in other operating systems. That pretty much makes it an update where they removed the security and replaced the taskbar--thus making it a not so good upgrade afterall.

As well, they seem to have incorporated a bunch of additional DRM into it that Vista didn't have even though Vista had a huge amount of privacy violating DRM features.

Re:What a crock

[Allador]

What Microsoft did was remove a bunch of security and that made it faster and they replaced the old task bar with another that has some features that you would find in other operating systems.

And which exact security features did they remove?

And you can go back to the old taskbar if you want.

As well, they seem to have incorporated a bunch of additional DRM into it that Vista didn't have even though Vista had a huge amount of privacy violating DRM features.

And which exact DRM is that? And what precisely did it stop you from doing on your beta win7 machine that you wanted to, but couldnt because of DRM?

Can you describe which 'DRM features' Vista had that were 'privacy violating'?

Re:Weird

[jedidiah]

...except it is Microsoft that's forcing OEMs to charge for the downgrade.

As the "owner" of the product, Microsoft still has all the control.
Microsoft still gets to engage in price discrimination that they can
use as a blunt instrument to keep their bigger resellers in line.

Upgrades usually involve a fee

[Thaelon]

Upgrades usually involve a fee...so this kinda makes sense if you're cynical enough.

Is Vista still that bad?

[donstenk]

Really, I don't hear many complaints anymore and I see more and more people with computers with a black task bar and transparant title bars. I assumed that after the service pack it would be allright and that system requirements had reached the required level.

Re:Weird

[z80kid]

> But if you read TFA, it states that MS is not charging consumers for the downgrade, the OEMs are.

Microsoft mandates that you must upgrade to Vista Business to downgrade.
So unless Microsoft is selling the Basic and Business versions for the same price, they ARE profiting from the downgrade.

Re:There is always a real OS upgrade

[cheftw]

Parent is misleading. OSX is not immune, does not (in most cases) require a hardware change, need to pay for itself since it is cheaper than vista, have anything to do with id theft and mean you can't control your botnet (client vs. server plx).

Re:Only certain Vista titles are eligible for down

[blind biker]

An XP "downgrade" can only be purchased with a Business or Ultimate version of Vista. So if a customer is looking at a configure-to-order laptop such as with Dell or Lenovo, then in many cases customers have to upgrade their OS from Home Basic or Home Premium in order to get the XP downgrade option.

Is this charging more for XP...in many people's minds, yes. But legally (Full disclosure: IANAL), they are paying for the Vista upgrade, not for the XP downgrade.

If I present you two hardware-wise identical laptops, both downgraded (or upgraded, being that Vista is a POS) to WindowsXP, but one was running Vista Home and the other Vista Business, would you be able to tell the difference? Would there be any difference at all, between the two laptops? Of course not.

It's very easy to argue that Microsoft is in fact milking the customers for all they're worth, by actually charging them for the downgrade to XP.

Only certain Vista titles are eligible for down...

[windsurfer619]

...load. No one wants to get anything lower than Business or Ultimate.

should be loss...

[token_username]

Profit? That's funny. There should be a massive loss here on account of the horrible flop of Vista. Taxing XP loyalty (I use loyalty loosely) makes the loss less horrible. If Microsoft wasn't a giant, it would get thrown out of the market for making customers pay for its mistake. As it stands though, we have no choice.

ME

[edxwelch]

> Dell Inc. adds an extra $20 to the price to downgrade a PC from Vista to Windows XP
So, how much does it cost to downgrade to Windows ME?

I'd love to see the internal memos

[Joce640k]

Even if Microsoft doesn't make physical cash from this you can bet they insisted on a contract which says: "If you don't charge $60 extra for XP we send the guy with the chairs.".

1999 called...

[Brandybuck]

1999 called, and they want their rant back!

Seriously, can we stop with the Microsoft-is-Eeevil and I-had-to-pay-microsoft-tax crap? Or is it a religious mindset that won't let you see the truth? It's impossible to convince a flatearther that the world is not flat, a troofer that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and a Microsoft-basher that the world isn't secretly being run from Redmond.

We all have choices. If you choose to use Microsoft products, then the only one you can blame is yourself. I built a new computer over the weekend. It does not have any Microsoft product installed. Not Windows, not Office, nothing. There was no Microsoft tax. The computer was CHEAPER than the equivalent Dell.

Don't like that choice? Then buy an Apple. I know it's fashionable to pretend that Macs aren't really computers, but it's not much different from pretending that the world is flat. They're not much more expensive, much more stylish, and slightly more reliable. Don't like that choice either? Buy a computer with Linux, or without any OS. You won't find them at your local BigBox store, but you can find them online. So stop whining and start exercising your choice. If you don't it will just atrophy.

Re:1999 called...

[Casandro]

Of course, and even if I wanted to have Windows on my PC, I surely wouldn't want Vista or XP home. I'd probably want to go with one of the server variations as that provides basic functionality I would expect of any modern OS.

Re:1999 called...

[Brandybuck]

I didn't say a DIY laptop, I just said a laptop. Get an Apple. Or an Asus netbook. Sheesh.

Re:1999 called...

[Brandybuck]

Its about some people being forced into using an operating system that they do not want to use or having to pay extra fees to downgrade to XP when they shouldn't have to.

In fifteen years of observing the situation, I have yet to encounter one instance of someone being forced to use Windows on their personal property. Of course, I don't know what the situation is over in Iran. Perhaps the Mullahs force people to use Windows there. But over here I can use any damned OS I want and there's nothing Microsoft can do about it.

Or maybe you're referring to using Windows at work? Weird, at my last job I had to use RHEL4! In any case, they aren't our computers, they are our employers.

Re:Weird

[Brandybuck]

No one's forcing you to buy Windows. No really. If you don't like Dell's business model of One-Size-Fits-All "customization", then go elsewhere. Or build your own. Or buy a Mac. Or buy a Linux system online. But for the love of God stop whining about how unfair the world is. Everyone who managed to pass kindergarten already knows that, so STFU!

Windows XP is in the vault

[tepples]

If a vendor has entered into an agreement with MS that states that all PCs must ship with Vista, then that was their fault.

Microsoft declines to ship new Windows XP Home Edition licenses to vendors, except on netbooks. Is it the vendors' fault for not shifting production entirely to netbooks?

Re:Weird

[toddestan]

Maybe in the world of exotics and classics. I can't think of any instances where common cars for the masses like Camrys and Explorers have appreciated in value.

I agree.

[mahadiga]

The higher sales numbers serve as marketing copy. It's artificially inflating their sales.

And SEC must regulate market capitalization of all NASDAQ listed companies to no more than TWICE their quarterly revenue. This will

• Prevent Pyramid type scams in Corporate Management and Stock Markets
• Will create more opportunities for start-ups resulting in millions of jobs creation in India.

Please vote your opinion.

Ownership

[mahadiga]

Please do not buy software from Microsoft.
Because you do not OWN the software you brought from Microsoft. You don't OWN any product unless you can MODIFY it.

Use a boot disk, silly

[inmytaxi]

All you need is the drivers to downgrade. Don't use IBM or Dell's method, boot from the cd and install windows XP and install the drivers from the web site. People should pay for being ignorant.

Re:Weird

[Forrest Kyle]

I never said once, anywhere in my post, that it was unfair. Just stupid and wrong.

So clearly it is not I who needs to "STFU". I think you need to LTR. (Lern 2 reed)

Re:Buy only w/ any Windows

[Almahtar]

Disclaimer: I am an advocate of Linux and haven't used Windows (other than an occasional VM or a customer's machine) for a few years.

Support costs for another OS are far from insignificant. If a large organization sells machines with an OS they have to be able to support it if they want to compete, and training or hiring techs for a completely different OS just isn't cheap.

The inroad that I think Linux may have with big OEMs is that eventually the training costs will offset the savings in license costs. If it hasn't yet, or if it wasn't perceived to have done so by management, it would make sense for them to drop it.

Personally I think companies that are looking more long term will be the first to realize it's worth it and really commit.

I wish my downgrade was that cheap!

[amigabill]

My laptop didn't offer a downgrade to XP at all, but I wanted this particular one specifically because of the feature set and graphics chip model which was hard to find other sources for, for peculiar but important to me reasons. I had to pay full retail to buy XP for this thing, which was a lot, but worth it since some of my software still doesn't run on Vista today. (which includes the VPN software supported/provided by my employer, they do not currently support Vista)

Re:Where is my installation CD?

[Allador]

If you paid for Vista w/ downgrade but did not receive BOTH sets of CD's, then you got screwed, and you should take it up with Lenovo.

We buy our laptops from HP (Compaq's, not the consumer crap), and when we do that we get the following media with the laptops:

Vista Business x86
Vista Business x64
Vista 32-bit and 64-bit drivers
XP Pro
XP pro drivers

With regard to your partition-only problem, use one of the million of free drive imaging systems to pull it off, and pull that into your VM. It means you'll never be able to install fresh, but there's no reason you cant use your XP install in a VM.