Windows 7 Licensing a "Disaster" For XP Shops

snydeq writes "Enterprise licensing for Windows 7 could cause major headaches and add more cost to the Windows 7 migration effort, InfoWorld reports. Under the proposed license, businesses that purchase PCs with Windows 7 pre-installed within six months of the Oct. 23 launch date will be able to downgrade those systems to XP, and later upgrade back to Windows 7 when ready to migrate users. PCs bought after April 22, 2010, however, can only be downgraded to Vista — no help for XP-based organizations, which would be wise to wait 12 to 18 months before adopting Windows 7, so that they can test hardware and software compatibility and ensure their vendors' Windows 7 support meets their needs. XP shops that chose not to install Vista will have to either rush their migration process or spend extra to enroll in Microsoft's Software Assurance program, which allows them to install any OS version — for about $90 per year per PC."

Comments

Or you know...

[Darkinspiration]

Most shop will just ignore this little twist and downgrade to xp anyway. No sane admin will run a mix of os on user workstations if he can prevent it.

Re:Or you know...

[Zarel]

Sigh, I guess this is the price we all pay for being reliant on a company which I suspect is past it's peak.

What?

Microsoft is doing exactly what any other software company in their position has done, and would do. You have GenericSoftware 3.0. Then, GenericSoftware 4.0 is released. You either you have to deal with a mixed software environment, or you have to upgrade everyone to GenericSoftware 4.0. How is what Microsoft's doing different from what every other company is doing?

And don't tell me open-source doesn't have this problem. Windows XP was released in 2001. If you asked for support and patches for, say, Mozilla Phoenix 0.3 (released 2002), you'd get laughed out of pretty much everywhere. And if you actually cared about using open-source, you'd be using Linux and you wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

And it's not compatibility, either: Windows 7 is coming with Windows XP Mode, which will give you all the IE6 you'll need for your buggy ActiveX webapps.

So tell me: What's wrong with what Microsoft is doing with Windows XP?

Re:Or you know...

[geekoid]

"If you asked for support and patches for, say, Mozilla Phoenix 0.3 (released 2002), you'd get laughed out of pretty much everywhere"

or more likely be pointed to the repository where you can get it, for free. Oh, and if you need a specific patch and could move to the newest branch, you could hire someone to patch it. I can't think of a situation where that could possible happen, but if it did you have options.

MS is different because of HOW they are doing it.

XP mode doesn't run everything that well, yet.

Will XP mode support old apps that are running in a legacy mode in XP?
Don't laugh, there are many, many of them.

If it can't run Access97, then business will be slow to uptake. You heard me.

If the XP mode works well. Meaning it just works, the they need to offer a very inexpensive Win7.

The power of lock-in

[Nerdposeur]

And yet, somehow I fear that even this will not usher in The Year of Linux on the Desktop.

Downgrade then Upgrade... sigh...

[decipher_saint]

How about just "Sell XP Licenses" or is that too easy?

same old

[gx5000]

We're on XP...
They are thinking of going Vista because of the 1 on 1 MS support we have.
Most techs here are well against any move away from XP...
Vista II or 7 depending what your take is is not an option.
We want out of the M$ revenue tree...
Just code something that works and we'll pay for the patches/upgrades.
Stop trying to sell us new stuff that just takes up more CPU cycles for no good reason.
This industry is going nowhere fast.

Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time

[jollyreaper]

Anecdotal observation time. I just built a new desktop and am planning on using it as a testbed. I have a homebrew distro of XP called XP 64-bit Ultimate which is intended to be a current, patched, up-to-date version of XP so you're not stuck downloading several hundred megs of patches and cruft when you do a new install. I also have Ubuntu 9.04 and the beta for Windows 7.

Ubuntu worked right out of the box, decent default viddy drivers, network card detected. Sound isn't working but I hadn't expected any of it to work since this is a newish motherboard with everything integrated so that's much better than I expected. XP had a worse default viddy driver and no networking. Of course, I managed to kill Ubuntu trying to get the full ATI drivers working but that's probably just a silly mistake made overlooking something.

Now I know that people will say "n00b, you can slipstream stuff into your custom build of xp your such a linux fanboy" etc etc but what's nice about Ubuntu is you don't have to dick with any of that stuff. Distros release very frequently and you can burn a new CD whenever you want. You can't even cheat with Windows and borrow someone's more recent CD because your legally-purchased key won't likely be compatible.

This is a roundabout way of saying that for all the unfamiliar quirks and different ways of doing things, open source is so much nicer to work with simply due to the lack of the licensing model.

Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Okay, so to get this straight:
linux installed fine, but without working sound. You killed your linux installation through attempting to update video drivers.
windows installed fine, but without working LAN drivers. I am assuming you corrected this and installed proper ATI drivers without crashing your system.

Objectively, how is your Linux experience any better than Windows? It sounds like overall, it was worse (assuming you had a need to upgrade to ATI drivers. ). I'm not saying that linux can't be easily installed and working, obviously that is not true. However, your anecdotal experience -- if anything --- seems to say you should stay with Windows.

Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time

[Anonymous Coward]

You skipped the part where he had to spend tons of time creating a homebrew up-to-date Windows install disc, whereas he just had to download the latest Ubuntu CD and without tweaking it mostly worked.

That was his point: that to be "legit" with Windows you have to do so much work, by using a really old install disc and then installing tons of updates. Whereas with OSS licensing, you always have the option of directly installing the most up-to-date software.

Microsoft seeking a patent...

[syousef]

"A method of automatically loading a weapon for repeatedly and regularly firing at one's foot without breaking the rythm".

Microsoft has in the last couple of years:

- Released THE most hated OS since WinMe

- Released a confusing myriad of versions of their latest OS' which seek to differentiate by feature set, ultimately pissing off any customer who buys or is forced by a hardware manufacturer to buy an inferior version of the OS only to find that they must upgrade to get important functionality enabled

- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can

- Fired their Aces game development team ending a long running franchise in flight simulation

- Put just about everyone off side with their nutty Windows Genuine campaign

- Fucked up their Zune software with date based bugs

It's like the captain of the ship's drunk at the helm.

Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...

[Toreo asesino]

...and yet for all of that, nobody else had been able to make much inroad. Hmmm.

Re:April plenty of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously recommending shops evaluate a release candidate for hardware/software compatibility? What happens when MS release the actual Windows 7 OS and breaks something you've previously verified as working?

Pfffftt.

The whole thing is silly

[Gay for Linux]

From TFA: "Web apps tuned to Internet Explorer 6, which Microsoft has essentially orphaned. Windows 7 will ship with IE8, which has a compatibility mode for IE7, but not for IE6. And if IT retains IE7 in Windows 7, Silver notes that IE7 lacks an IE6 compatibility mode. So IT must rework its IE6-dependent Web apps or use XP mode to run IE6. Both are hassles."

When Apple releases a new OS and says it's not compatible with the old, there's a huge line to suck Steve Jobs' dick. "Support of legacy software has made Windows a bloated piece of shit. Apple's so smart."

When Microsoft makes a similar change people whine about all the hassles they'll have to go through.

Re:The whole thing is silly

[cheezitman2001]

Thank you. I'm so tired of people blindly hating on Microsoft. After years and years of people accusing them of being built on outdated code, they finally try to shed the past and finally abandon XP, everyone attacks them. I just can't understand how people are bitching at Microsoft for not letting them run a decade old OS that's soon to be not supported anymore. Does anyone buy a new Mac and throw a fit when they can't get OS X 10.0 on it? No, that'd be idiotic. If you want to use your old software on your old hardware, that's fine, but to request an outdate OS on a new machine is a hassle for the manufacturer, and you should be charged as such.

Re:The whole thing is silly

[kannibal_klown]

When Apple releases a new OS and says it's not compatible with the old, there's a huge line to suck Steve Jobs' ****. "Support of legacy software has made Windows a bloated piece of shit. Apple's so smart."

When Microsoft makes a similar change people whine about all the hassles they'll have to go through.

As a personal user I wouldn't mind if Microsoft decided to pull an Apple and cut off support for all of their legacy stuff. I don't really use much legacy software anymore, and am just about done with PC gaming. If it would streamline the OS and remove some bugs, I'm all for it and would applaud them instead of criticize.

However I can see why businesses aren't happy: many rely on old custom legacy systems. They have websites setup for IE 6, rely on legacy era (ie DOS) applications for obscure equipment, some Sales admin/entry software that can only work on certain environments, etc. And hardware, they don't just have to worry about workstations but external devices (like scales, sensors, lab equipment, etc) that might only work with a DOS-based program through an old COM port.

In short, businesses have a LOT of specialized software that they need to keep running and cannot replace and thus want things to stay status-quo, and I can't really blame them. If upgrading their PCs and OS means spending hundreds of thousands (if not millions) on new software and hardware, you can imagine that they'd like to sit just where they are.

Re:The whole thing is silly

[Sj0]

Yeah, The Internet is a fucking hypocrite. It's almost like it's an amalgamation of a huge number of people with a huge number of differing opinions instead of a single entity. Doesn't it know it must be internally consistent, ideologically!?

Re:The whole thing is silly

[fooslacker]

While everyone does hate on MS around here there is one major difference. In general when Apple went to OS X (and with most subsequent upgrades) it was generally viewed as a better system but when MS went to Vista it was viewed as worse. I'm not saying you don't have a point about people hating on MS just to hate but the comparison is a bit apples and oranges.

Re:The whole thing is silly

[pHus10n]

That's what kills me about the legacy apps people always bring up. Why do ---I--- need legacy code for your disgustingly old database software (or insert another example)? I don't! Rebuild the operating system from the ground up, and let legacy users stay on that software. For the rest of us that need a modern system, bring out Windows Awesome or we'll just continue looking for other options.

Re:The whole thing is silly

[gbjbaanb]

because nobody really cares about you. You don't buy a copy of Windows on Select agreement, or Software Assurance - ie you don't pay Stevie every year to run the same software, or in the case where you get tp upgrade to the latest version, *have* to upgrade whether you want to or not.

See, you don't want to run anything but the latest stuff, but you don't spend like those companies do, and they;re the ones who buy the "enterprise" software that still needs XP, or NT4, or DOS. Selling to you is just a sideline to Microsoft's real business.

And last I looked, you weren't the marketplace for Biztalk, Exchange and all the other Really Expensive server software MS gets to sell to the companies that pay for Windows on their yearly licences.

Re:The whole thing is silly

[mrbcs]

I think people need to mind their own business. If I want to run a network of XP and 2000 computers in my house, it's my issue. I have thousands of programs that run fine on these systems and I'll be damned if I spend any more money because some asshole thinks I should upgrade. One of my kids even runs a windows 98 box because of old games. I have a hardware firewall and watch the network.

I hate Microsoft for their business practices, but I use their software all the time. I still use Office 97, Simply accounting 9, Photoshop 6 and many other programs that won't work on Vista.

I have enough hardware and software to run my shit for the next 10 years. My last hardware upgrade was 3 years ago and that machine is the one I'm working on now. I can also still pull p4's out of the e-waste bin because people are too lazy to fix them.

Microsoft can kiss my ass as far as activation goes. I hate that and their Windows disadvantage with a passion. Stay the hell out of my house. It's not your computer Bill, it's mine. I paid for it, I paid for my software and I pay my power bills and internet access. I shut the windows updates off when I found out that service pack 3 totally screwed up my network and that I needed an extra gig of ram to maintain my speed. I rolled everything back to service pack 2, shut off updates and have reclaimed my performance. I haven't had any issues with my network since.

Since these software companies demand that we upgrade to the latest Microsoft OS, I don't upgrade their shit either. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am constantly amazed at lemmings that upgrade because Microsoft says so when the stuff they have works fine. Fools. I guess lots of people like throwing money away. Office 97 and Simply Accounting version 9 still work fine.

/rant

Re:The whole thing is silly

[Allador]

What did Microsoft do?. Try running 32 bit applications on Win64 and see how well that works. Some don't. Why do you even have to buy Win64 as a separate product? Poor planning or greed?

Have you ever even tried to use an x64 windows version? None of what you're talking about exists. 32-bit apps run fine in x64 windows. This is being posted from Vista x64 Business on an HP Compaq 8710w, using 32-bit opera. Works just fine.

MS Office is 32-bit, works just fine. I run VS2008, Oracle Enterprise x86, Eclipse, Tomcat, Apache, MySQL, Rails/Mongrel, and a million other 32-bit apps, they all work fine.

In addition, I have a dozen win2003 x64 servers in the field (they're still a minority) that work just fine with 32-bit apps. Most of them run IIS in 32-bit mode because some app they require includes only 32-bit components.

I think someone may have given you bad information about x64 windows that you took for gospel.

And generally, you dont have to buy x64 windows as a separate product. Most corporate targeted systems that support x64 (like my hp laptop) shipped with both x86 and x64 Vista discs, and driver discs for both. Every server I've ever bought that came with an MS operating system also had that.

Re:The whole thing is silly

[hairyfeet]

Uuhhh...because XP after SP2 was actually good, while Vista sucked the big wet titty? The stupidest mistake in the history of MSFT "WTF were they thinking?" mistakes had to be fucking up the Vista driver model so XP drivers wouldn't run. Do you have ANY idea how many millions of drivers there were for XP? How many of those companies couldn't care less about writing a Vista driver for anything more than a year old? That was a major fuck up, which was done for an equally boneheaded reason, that ended up helping them not one bit.

This of course don't bring up all the "fun" things myself and many of my customers experienced on Vista, like the way it would shit itself and die trying to connect to a network share once a week or so, the 15 second "I just had a brainfart and froze for no damned reason" episodes, which happen just often enough to REALLY piss you off, the "no matter how much RAM you have or how much you tweak I will thrash the living shit out of your harddrives" problem, which actually killed a new 200Gb of mine. Hell I could go on and on.

I hate to bring Apple into this, but fuck it. Steve Jobs had it right. When he brought in OSX he had a seemless way to use OS9 to give everyone time to migrate over to the new OS. That was VERY smart. Vista seemed to break more things than fix, ran slow even on decently powerful machines (mine at the time was a 3.6Ghz P4 with 2Gb of RAM and it ran like Win98 on a 486. WTF?), had problems like the network share bug that I hadn't seen since Win9x, it was just a POS OS. Most of my customers either bought a copy of XP and had me wipe the machine, or gave it away to a relative and had me build them a new box. I gave away the copy of Vista I got from being a beta tester and last I heard it is still changing hands like a bad fruitcake.

So I think I will just sit this one out and stick with XP X64. My new machine can go up to Phenom II Quad and 32Gb of RAM, so there really isn't a reason to jump on Win7. Since nearly all my customers have newer XP machines I have advised them to wait until at least SP1, preferably SP2 of Win7. By then we should see whether Win7 is gonna be another Vista bomb or not. But as someone who has been building and repairing Windows boxes since the days of Win3.xx it is pretty sad that I am having to say that. When old Bill was in charge he may have been a bastard, but he was a bastard that put out a decent business OS. That just ain't the case anymore.

Software vs. Hardware support - A Realistic View.

[geekmux]

"...which allows them to install any OS version..."

This "Assurance" is bullshit. XP WILL die eventually, and it will be due to the hardware vendors not writing drivers anymore, not because Microsoft has "assured" you by taking your money. It's already getting difficult to find XP driver support for new hardware out there TODAY, much less 12 - 24 months from now when businesses will still be looking to run XP.

Bah! They're Just Testing the Water

[Greyfox]

They're just testing how much more abuse they can heap on their customers before those customers start leaving in droves. It really is quite consistent with their business strategies. They'll keep pushing until a lot of customers start looking elsewhere then they'll backpedal to just before that point and dial it in there. They're experts of having things just good enough and just usable enough that people don't go looking elsewhere.

If you've been following their behavior for a while, it's pretty clear what they're up to. Watch for an increasingly bizarre set of announcements in the coming months, and at least one major backpedal.

HOLY FUCK

[moniker127]

You mean if i'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading to the latest and greatest If i feel like formatting several times and have no idea what XP mode is?

Seriously- the amount of backwards compatibility microsoft gives is ridiculous. Microsoft bends over backwards to provide backwards compatibility- including installing a full copy of an older operating system in their new one. If you cant find some solution that works for you- are aren't actually looking.

Doomed to repeat, over and over....

[hesaigo999ca]

They did not learn their lesson with Vista, and now they continue onwards with the same silly stance on license activation for their products, as well as making things difficult to no end, for no good reason other then to frustrate the user from ever trying to go to xp.

The problem is they do not understand windows microsoft ended AT XP! No one wants to go further with the line then XP, they should just accept this, and make things easier for those with XP, and enforce XP, secure it further, as it seems no one wants to move, even if you pay them to, or offer a free version of Vista (which they arent even doing)

No wonder business is slow to embrace change

[thane777]

It all comes down to the "stick with what sucks less" mentality. Businesses are in it for business - not to pay Microsoft to debug their software for them.

Re:Being in I.T. must suck

[gbjbaanb]

Why?

Most people buy the software with the computer, Dell or HP preinstalls it to your specification and you're pretty much done. The hardware is chucked away well before the software, and then... well, you just buy another PC with the OS preinstalled. IIRC its cheaper to do this than it is to put a free OS on the computer. (sucks that does, but if you have a monopolistic marketplace, what did you expect? A class-action lawsuit?)

Its generally only the large enterprises that go for SA because the quantity of licences they buy makes it cost-effective. I'm not sure what the cut-off point is for quantity of desktops and servers is before SA makes sense.

What to do when recession turns into a depression?

[Billly Gates]

Why raise the price.

  I am sure all these businesses who are fighting tooth and nail not to lay off any more workers would love to waste more money for an OS that does the same things as XP for more money.