backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 121 comment(s) - last by nitrous9200.. on Jul 28 at 11:11 PM

"Dell has answers" ... like a Vista Downgrade to XP, but only for some users, and expect to possibly pay a substantial fee

Some corporate and private users of Windows XP remain lukewarm about Windows Vista and its higher hardware demands.  Microsoft has tried repeatedly to transition XP into end-of-lifespan mode, but has found that PC makers are constantly looking for ways to give customers what they want -- an XP OS.

Microsoft is still trying, though, and has insisted that customers simply do not want XP.  On June 30, availability of XP will be discontinued for most mainstream PCs.  Anticipating this, Dell yesterday wrapped up its XP installations and is shifting to a new tactic.

Dell, the second largest manufacturer of notebooks and PCs, behind only Hewlett Packard, anticipates a strong continued demand for Windows XP.  In response to this, and Microsoft's decision not to extend the lifetime further, it is going to take advantage of the "downgrade rights" applicable to Windows Vista Business and Ultimate licenses, which allow a user to ask for a copy of XP Pro in its place with the option of returning to Vista when they see fit.

On its website, Dell states:

Microsoft is making the full line of Windows® Vista the primary operating system for new PCs. However, customers who are buying a new PC have an opportunity from Dell to buy a Dell PC with Windows XP® Professional pre-installed and receive a Windows Vista installation disc. This gives customers the option of running XP now and transitioning to Vista when they’re ready.

However the privilege comes at a cost.  Not only will they have to pay for the extra money to upgrade from the standard OS to Business or Ultimate editions.  For the Latitude, OptiPlex and Precision lines that will be the end of the expenses, but for the Vostro line customers will also have to buy the "BONUS" version of the OS, a Dell creation. 

Here's how the "BONUS" works.  The default Vista is including in the cost of the notebook, say a Vostro 1000.  Upgrading to Vista Business over the default Vista Home Basic will cost $99.  To have the OS pre-downgraded to XP and in the box, though, will cost an addition $49 bringing the total to $149.  These expenses for the Vista Ultimate upgrade route are $149 and $20, for a total of $169.  This will likely be a tough to swallow decision for consumers in that they not only have to pay more, but they also are presented with the dilemma of whether they want to pay the extra $20 to have the option of the more fully equipped Ultimate edition.

So really the "BONUS" is anything but to the customer, but it only affects those buying Vostro branded machines.  Unfortunately, for customers hoping to exercise downgrade rights on Inspiron branded notebooks they will have to upgrade the Vista version and do the downgrade themselves as Dell is currently providing no downgrade services for them.  This is also rather strange in that Inspiron is Dell's best-selling brand.

Dell's 630 and 720 H2C desktops and the M1730 notebook appear to provide downgrades free of charge, though an official announcement has not yet been made.

While the new XP offerings from Dell will please some who are eager to avoid Vista, it will likely anger others.  In particular many will likely take issue with Dell's creative "BONUS" policy on the Vostro line and its lack of support on the best-selling Inspiron line.  Dell in providing a downgrade option but only offering it half-hearted support is perhaps offering an insightful reflection on general consumer reception of the Windows Vista OS itself -- many are fine with, but some are unsure of it, and a few remain ardently against it.

Microsoft will continue to offer XP for small, cheap "subnotebooks", such as the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) XO and the ASUS Eee PC, as well as "nettops" until 2010.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why?
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2008 1:46:14 PM , Rating: 5
I can understand why people with old PCs wouldn't want to upgrade. But if you're actually buying a new PC that can't handle Vista, there's something wrong. You can get 2GB of RAM for under $50!




RE: Why?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/19/2008 1:58:29 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. For a NEW computer:

Vista SP1 with 1GB = piss, moan, Hulk Smash
Vista SP1 with 2GB+ = stop bitching


RE: Why?
By Denigrate on 6/19/2008 2:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much like XP, except you paid $100+ for a 256mb stick of RAM back then and XP ran like crap on the 128mb stick Dell/Gateway/HP stuck in most of those box's. Everone knows that 512mb is a bare min to run XP, only at 1GB does it really run well.

These days you can get 4gb for ~$70-$80.


RE: Why?
By bryanW1995 on 6/19/2008 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, I did that. I got an inspiron with 1gb, then bought 4gb for $66 at newegg.


RE: Why?
By ImSpartacus on 6/20/2008 9:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
But you still have a 32-bit OS. Dell refuses to put 64-bit OS's on their machines.


RE: Why?
By thartist on 6/19/2008 6:02:33 PM , Rating: 5
The bare minimum RAM for XP is 256MB so you can somewhat use it, and it's does run perfectly on 512MB so don't exaggerate.

NOWADAYS, heavier software (not XP itself) will make you need 1GB-2GBs to run.


RE: Why?
By wordsworm on 6/26/2008 9:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bare minimum RAM for XP is 256MB

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/...

Bare minimum is 64MB of RAM. 128 is recommended. Personally, I found 768MB to be a basic minimum.

2GB on Vista is OK, but 4GB is required for it to be really smooth. Of course, I'm running the 64 bit version. No complaints.

Still, for comical effect, the folks in marketing should've called it 'upgrading' rather than 'downgrading'.


RE: Why?
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 6/19/2008 4:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think Vista is that bad with 1gb on my old PC. I'm sure 512mb is horrible though.


RE: Why?
By daftrok on 6/19/2008 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 3
Vista BASIC on 1 GB runs absolutely fine so long as you have a decent processor, but 2 GB is recommended, especially now that its dirt cheap to upgrade.


RE: Why?
By bearxor on 6/19/2008 9:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
Not that it really matters, but I ran Vista starting from Beta 1 through RC and retail on my old Inspiron 6000 with a 1.73ghz Dothan and 1GB of RAM just fine. Aero and everything. Even played C&C3 on it, with reduced visual settings, but that was probably more the fault of my 128MB X300 than anything.


RE: Why?
By Flunk on 6/19/2008 10:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
I have Vista Home Premium on my Turion x2 1.6Ghz notebook with integrated graphics and 1GB of RAM. Runs well, I'm sick of people over-exaggerating the system requirements for Vista.

This is exactly what happened when XP came out, people complained about the increased system requirements and made exaggerated claims, often without actually using the OS. There is really no problem with Vista on preitty much any new computer (Things like the Eee are the exception).


RE: Why?
By Solandri on 6/20/2008 1:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
I went from XP -> Vista on a 1.6 GHz Core Solo laptop with 1.25 GB of RAM. Vista was significantly slower, often giving me the feeling that it was "chugging". I swapped the 256MB stick for a 2GB stick (for 3GB total), and the UI speed is almost back to what I was used to with XP. So there really is something to people complaining about Vista in 1GB. If you only have 1GB, based on my direct comparison experience I would definitely recommend XP over Vista.

Also, Vista has a pretty serious color management bug right now which makes it almost useless for color-sensitive photo/graphics work. Basically any time the screen fades or blacks (including all those UAC dialogs), any loaded color profile gets unloaded.


RE: Why?
By oab on 6/19/2008 11:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Know what's truly horrible?

486SX 75 Mhz
36mb RAM
1.1gb HDD
Windows 98se
Openoffice 1.1 (requires 64mb minimum, installer will run with 32 in the system).

You press a button on the keyboard, and then wait for things to happen. That was truly slow. The install took 4 hours off of a parallel port CD-ROM drive.


RE: Why?
By Digimonkey on 6/20/2008 8:19:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but that'd fly running MS-DOS 6.22. Not to mention awesome benchmarks on wolfenstein 3D.


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 6/20/2008 9:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be playing some Tie Fighter or Wing Commander on that!

What are you waiting for? slap dos on that sucker and go blow some stuff up. :)


RE: Why?
By sprockkets on 6/20/2008 10:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
haha, I remember having a 12mhz and 16mhz turbo 386 system, and running win 3.0, then 3.1. It wasn't till the sweet spot, 66mhz, that win3.1 and the then current star wars game ran good (no wait, 75mhz was perfect for it)


RE: Why?
By MarkHark on 6/21/2008 7:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
I once had a 40MHz 386DX I had only 4MB on.
At one point, I had to borrow an extra 1MB (4x256kB sticks) from a cousin in order to get it to run the original Doom, which needed about 4.3 MB to run, plus whatever DOS consumed for itself.

Yes, I'm that old :(


RE: Why?