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?
By lazylazyjoe on 6/23/2008 4:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
Should have put windows 95. Less memory requirements, runs most win32 apps, can be setup for tcp/ip, and it came on floppys incase you actually bought a parallel cd drive just to install win98.
Or use a small linux distro like grey cat. SIAG office would be much quicker here than openoffice w/ win98. Or abiword.
Also, if you have a real computer in your network, login using a rdp client (remote desktop) and you can actually browse the web on the thing.
I setup a dual boot on my 486/60 24mb ram and it ran as fast as anything i use today mostly.


RE: Why?
By AstroCreep on 6/19/2008 5:12:21 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know man, I seem to think 4GB is the sweet-spot for Vista. Perhaps this will be seen as a flame, but 2GB runs well, 1GB you really need to turn down some unnecessary services, 4GB runs without a hitch.

...but how many 'mainstream' systems that Average Joe buys from Best Buy has 4GB already installed?

The two biggest problems with Vista aren't even because of Microsoft:
1. poorly written programs & drivers that aren't fully 'compatible' with Vista
2. hardware requirements that are MUCH steeper than XP.
This is generally the biggest issue (I find); it needs more than XP (hardware wise)...well, XP is also almost 6 years old. I'm curious what the requirements would have been for an OS that would have been between XP & Vista, because frankly, I don't think we'd be far off in our expectations in hardware requirements. Almost an "inflation" of sorts.


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 6/19/2008 5:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
I personally didn't notice much difference in performance under Vista upgrading 2 different machines from 2GB to 4GB. (My purpose for upgrading the memory was to better be able to host virtual OSs.)


RE: Why?
By Omega215D on 6/19/2008 6:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Mnay systems on sale in the best buy ad come with 3GB of RAM and core 2 or Phenom. Maybe these systems contain 4GB but the OS is only reporting 3 or so.


RE: Why?
By ImSpartacus on 6/20/2008 9:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no. Thay actually put two 1GB sticks and 2 512MB sticks in there.

It is the biggest waste of time ever getting 3GB of Ram, but every OEM tries to flaunt that on their higher end consumer machines. Then they end up costing $1000+ at Bestbuy/Walmart and people actually consider such computers!


RE: Why?
By wallijonn on 6/24/2008 1:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many systems on sale in the BestBuy ad come with 3GB of RAM and core 2 or Phenom. Maybe these systems contain 4GB but the OS is only reporting 3 or so.


Vista reserves RAM as it boots up, so a 4G machine should show about 3.2G on bootup. If that selfsame 800MB is reserved on a machine with 1G of memory then you'll have 200MB to run all apps. Which is why Vista needs 2G minimum (2G - 800MB = 1.2GB for apps.)


RE: Why?
By rdeegvainl on 6/20/2008 2:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
I guy I know, came to me with a laptop he just got from best buy to see if he got a good deal.
A laptop for just 1200$ Toshiba. Here are the specs.
2.1 Core 2 duo
4gb mem
2, 200gb hdd
ati mobility 3450

This is what my local best buy has sitting on the shelf. Looking on the website, they have more computers with 4gb than 2, and even more with 3.


RE: Why?
By AstroCreep on 6/22/2008 10:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
But I wouldn't classify a $1200 notebook as a "Mainstream System". More like the $600 hp that runs Vista Home Premium (and likely a ton of trialware) with 2GB installed.


RE: Why?
By Mitch101 on 6/19/2008 6:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
I actually have a Vista Ultimate 32bit machine strictly as a media center machine since the ATI HDTV Wonder doesnt have 64 bit drivers and never will (Hint the XP32 bit drivers work in Vista 32 and there is a patch to make both the analog and digital tuners work on the card from a third party just dont try to record from both at the same time) I has a mere 1 gig of ram and it runs perfectly fine. I was afraid that it would be a dog but its not. Its doing very well.

I also accidentally built a 2003 web server with 256megs of ram thinking I mis configured the mobo with onboard video to use 256megs but thats how small the stick of ram is. Funny enough it does very well and is running IIS, e-mail 3rd party server, and a mySQL database on it. All from 256megs of ram.

I have to think unless were gaming/video editing/photo chopping the Microsoft OS's do pretty good even in low ram situations. After all if I open task manager the two biggest pigs of memory are IE and Firefox both of which I don't do on either machine.


RE: Why?
By kc77 on 6/19/2008 8:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
How long does it take you to load Vista with 256 MB of RAM?


RE: Why?
By oab on 6/19/2008 11:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
He's running Server 2003 from 256, not vista.


RE: Why?
By bearxor on 6/19/2008 9:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
I run a HTPC as my DVR 24/7. I was in the Vista MCE Beta test and ran through it on my Opteron 165 with 1.5GB of RAM just fine. It can record 4 simultaneous streams, 2 SD from cable, 2 HD from OTA and playback a HD recording or a high-res matroska file while downloading torrents in the background just fine, without any problems during playback. I reboot it about once a month or so to keep up with updates, but other than adding torrents to download and managing downloaded files I don't touch it.

It ran with 1GB for about a month or so when i was transitioning it from a XPMCE machine, and I found a couple of 256MB sticks of PC3200 in a box so i just put them in there for the hell of it.


RE: Why?
By Staples on 6/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Screwballl on 6/19/2008 2:33:52 PM , Rating: 1
There is also the element of Vista simply not working as many drivers are still beta. then there are plenty of games and programs that simply will not work in Vista unless you spend more money to buy the latest versions.

For some people, it works fine because they spend that extra $500 to get all the latest versions of software. Some of us cannot plus we are happy with a very stable XP SP2/3.

If its not broken then don't try to fix it.


RE: Why?
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2008 2:51:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There is also the element of Vista simply not working as many drivers are still beta.
This is on NEW, factory-built computers.
quote:
then there are plenty of games and programs that simply will not work in Vista unless you spend more money to buy the latest versions.
I have, to date, run into only 2 problems. Both ironically from Microsoft. Now that WHS Power Pack 1 is out, I'm fine running VS6 in a virtual machine if I ever need to.


RE: Why?
By BZDTemp on 6/20/2008 1:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you have only seen two programs it does not mean it is like that for everyone.

Fx. only the most current version of SolidWorks will run on Vista and I promise you even an upgrade to the prior version will make a the Dell "offer" look like a sweet deal.

And then there is all the special hardware like computer controlled metal working gear...

Plus if you're a company with say 100+ laptops running XP you're IT-department surely won't want a few with Vista. After all it's not that long since they made the move to XP from W2K or perhaphs even NT. It is all about TCO and Vista offers little when you count the beans.


RE: Why?
By BMFPitt on 6/20/2008 3:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fx. only the most current version of SolidWorks will run on Vista and I promise you even an upgrade to the prior version will make a the Dell "offer" look like a sweet deal.
And then there is all the special hardware like computer controlled metal working gear...

So increibly obscure software has some problems? No big surprise there. I'm sure the previous version probably had problems going from NT4 to 2k. But why should Dell go out of their way to support it?
quote:
Plus if you're a company with say 100+ laptops running XP you're IT-department surely won't want a few with Vista.
If you're a company with 100+ laptops, your IT department shouldn't care what OS is preloaded because you should be loading your own standard image that they've created before anyone touches them.


RE: Why?
By TedStriker on 6/20/2008 3:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
Because that's what their customers are asking for. Dell wouldn't go through the trouble if they didn't feel like it would be worth it.

maybe Dell should have contacted you first to see if you were having any issues with Vista and get your approval...


RE: Why?
By BMFPitt on 6/20/2008 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because that's what their customers are asking for. Dell wouldn't go through the trouble if they didn't feel like it would be worth it.
They won't go through the trouble for free. Maybe they should have contacted you to get approval on their pricing?


RE: Why?
By nitrous9200 on 6/19/2008 3:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny that you say that; I just installed Vista on my computer today to test it (without a product key) since XP SP3 crashes when I work at all with external USB drives. The only driver I had to install myself was for the wireless card; the ethernet had the driver but I don't have a wired connection in my room currently. Then I ran Windows Update which installed the graphics, sound, monitor, and updated drivers for both the wireless and wired. Last but not least, I plug in my scanner and printer. A dialog comes up for both telling me I need to install a driver; I tell it to search online and it quickly and painlessly downloads and installs both. I didn't even have to restart the computer after the drivers were installed. So either I'm extraordinarily lucky with Vista or Microsoft's doing something right.


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 6/19/2008 5:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
This has been my experience also with Vista - for relatively modern, mainstream machines, there is no loading of drivers necessary - they all or on the DVD or come from Windows Update. That's sweet, since it saves lots of time.


RE: Why?
By neothe0ne on 6/19/2008 6:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
2gb of RAM isn't enough for Vista Ultimate x64, at least in my experience. That's why I'm much happier with XP Pro (what I'm using right now) than Vista 64.


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 6/19/2008 6:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
That makes sense, since 64-bit executables (your apps) are much larger than 32-bit apps.

But you're comparing apples and oranges in a way...XP Pro to Vista 64. How about 32-bit Vista? That will run great with 2GB of RAM. You'll have all the advatages of Vista, but without having to further upgrade your memory.


RE: Why?
By BMFPitt on 6/20/2008 7:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
I rarely pass 2GB of usage on my 4GB Vista64 Ultimate. Only when using VMs or editing video. Possibly in games - but I don't check.

What are you doing that uses all this memory (yet magically doesn't in XP?)


RE: Why?
By flurazepam on 6/20/2008 11:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I rarely pass 2GB of usage on my 4GB Vista64 Ultimate. Only when using VMs or editing video. Possibly in games - but I don't check.


2Gb is really too low for Vista x64 to run efficiently because the 64bit o/s has increased memory pointer size and also requires extra overhead for WOW64. If 2Gb is the sweet spot for 32bit o/s's - 4Gb is for 64bit ones. With ram being so cheap these days, 4Gb is a bargain. Vista x64 with 4Gb is a pleasure to use (at least for me). True 64bit apps fly, and from what I've read, Photoshop CS4 64bit is outstanding with ultra large files ;) Something that will not be possible in a 32bit system because of the 2Gb barrier.


RE: Why?
By BMFPitt on 6/20/2008 11:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
If you're editing massive files in Photoshop, yeah. For 80-90% of people, 2GB is plenty (for now.)


RE: Why?
By retrospooty on 6/19/2008 11:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
"if you're actually buying a new PC that can't handle Vista, there's something wrong. "

Its all about corporate purchases. I agree with your comments on personal users, but Vista and business is not going to go over well at all.


RE: Why?
By winterspan on 6/20/2008 3:27:04 AM , Rating: 1
What is wrong with you guys? That comment is completely irrelevant.

What is at issue here is customers being CHARGED to DOWNGRADE to a CHEAPER PRODUCT. That is outrageous!
So a customer who wants Windows XP has to PAY MORE to get a higher end version of Vista just to get the opportunity to AGAIN PAY MORE to be able to finally downgrade to XP.

That is as ludicrous a situation as I can fathom... Luckily, I'll never be buying a Dell computer again.


RE: Why?
By BMFPitt on 6/20/2008 7:41:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What is at issue here is customers being CHARGED to DOWNGRADE to a CHEAPER PRODUCT. That is outrageous!
A product that is being discontinued. It is a hassle for Dell to support, so it will cost you more.


RE: Why?
By Screwballl on 6/20/2008 11:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
Do you buy Vista from a store and expect them to give you XP for free? No, you are buying Vista. If you want XP you have to pay separate for that... in this case the option remains there if you want to go back to Vista down the road so you pay for both Vista AND XP.


RE: Why?
By Homerboy on 6/20/2008 10:05:45 AM , Rating: 3
because in a corporate/business setting there are MANY programs that will not function under Vista.

I know the typical response is "then ditch those programs" or "find new programs" but it simply does not work that easily in a business environment where there are propitiatory programs and modules written for your company etc..


Please
By Denigrate on 6/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By mattclary on 6/19/2008 2:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
I own a small computer repair business and have had several customers (on their own volition) ask me to obtain and install XP for them. Their old machines ran XP and they don't like the way Vista runs on their machines. Since they are calling me, it is obvious that they are "run of the mill" or "Joe Sixpack" customers.


RE: Please
By trooper11 on 6/19/2008 3:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
This seems to be very spotty becuase here at the computer shop I work for, we have maybe had a handful of people come through wanting XP installed over thier Vista install and those were becuase they had software that just wasnt supported in Vista.

On new pcs, we have actually gotten good feedback from our customers in regards to Vista. Yes, there is a bit of learning envolved but if people know whats invovled (as there is with any new OS release), they take things alot easier and end up liking the Vista experience. From reading forums and posts here, youd think there was this huge upswell of disgust for Vista. On new pcs, we havent gotten any complaints about Vista itself, on the other hand, the pcs are properly equipped for Vista, so that helps alot.

The biggest issues is that people always come in saying that they have 'heard' there are big problems with Vista and it should be avoided at all costs. Well when they actually start using a properly equipped pc (especially since sp1), thier opinion changes. Its the commercials and sometimes dubious claims spread around that hurt Vista more then anything that might be wrong with it.


RE: Please
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 6/19/2008 4:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
If they say Vista is bad in the Mac commercials, then it must be true!

I've actually had several people tell me that those commercials are the reason they don't want Vista. Unfortunately for Apple, they still don't want a Mac but just XP.

When it comes to technology, most people fear change. They would rather stick with what they are used to, instead of learn something new.


RE: Please
By bearxor on 6/19/2008 10:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
"When it comes to technology, most people fear change. They would rather stick with what they are used to, instead of learn something new."

That's the key right there. That's why there is Vista-hate just like there was XP hate when it came out. I think 2k was universally lauded (but coming from NT4, sheesh...) and ME was pretty hated as well, unfairly, IMO, I never had problems with it.

I have dozens of people around the office ask me when I'm working on my computer: "So, do you like that Windows Vista?" and I say "Yep, I think it's great!". Then the look at me and usually say "Huh... I hear there are a lot of problems with it." Usually I say "Have you used it yet?" and they say "No."

That's when I usually tell them that people fear change and they look at me and say "That's true."

There are legitimate reasons to pick XP over Vista. Our new editorial system client doesn't work in Vista. So when we replace our machines we're buying Vista licenses and then wiping them and install XP Pro from our VLA set. no biggie. The Vista license will be there for in the future.


RE: Please
By 67STANG on 6/19/2008 2:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think one of the biggest problems with Vista is that it didn't meet expectations-- in 2 different ways.

1) People were hoping for a revolutionary new OS that was as slim or slimmer than XP as far as system resources go, not a hog.

2) People were hoping that Windows would stay Windows. The Mac-Like interface is cool and definately an improvement, but MS renamed/moved many commonly used functions (read: add/remove programs...). Confusing to your average Joe.

Driver support is just frosting on the cake, and although it's not all MS's fault (it is partially), it is a deal-breaker for some folks.

Personally, the only thing I like about Vista is the interface. That's why I kept XP Pro on my main computer and just downloaded the Vista Transformation Pack *free*. Now I have the compatibiliy and speed of XP, with Vista's look. Gravy.


RE: Please
By Chaser on 6/19/2008 3:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
So was XP slimmer or as slim as Windows 2000 in terms of system resources?

As time passes computer hardware performance increases and the prices fall for everyone. Walk into a Best Buy and look at the specs for their average priced computer on the shelf. Imagine what was there 4 or so years ago in 2003 and compare.

Vista is at the start or bottom of a hardware cycle. I wonder how fast and supported Vista will be 4 years from now.


RE: Please
By 67STANG on 6/19/2008 4:22:32 PM , Rating: 1
Apples and Oranges. Windows 2000 was not aimed at end users; XP was/is. Computer hardware performance is relative.

If the OS requirements continue to climb along with the Hardware speed, where is the huge net gain in performance? I would rather the OS requirements cease to climb while hardware speeds increase.

I see your obvious hardware cost argument, (My Pentium 100Mhz machine was $2,500 in 1994), but this is the same argument as: "Gas is back down to $2.00/gallon, time to buy back my 12,000lb. SUV!"

To answer you question, Vista's support will actually be on the decline in 4 years as Windows 7 will have already been out for 1-2 years-- and vendors have already started on driver support for it.


RE: Please
By TomZ on 6/19/2008 7:53:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If the OS requirements continue to climb along with the Hardware speed, where is the huge net gain in performance? I would rather the OS requirements cease to climb while hardware speeds increase.

Implied in what you are saying, is that the newer OS releasese are "gobbling up" all the performance gains delivered by more capable hardware. And nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, the OS does require more resources, because it is doing more: think about pre-loading apps, pretty graphics, animations, security, etc. But also apps are running a heck of a lot faster than they used to on older hardware and OS versions.


RE: Please
By 67STANG on 6/20/2008 11:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In reality, the OS does require more resources, because it is doing more: think about pre-loading apps, pretty graphics, animations, security, etc. But also apps are running a heck of a lot faster than they used to on older hardware and OS versions.


But what's wrong with running XP on newer hardware? I don't need Vista to "gobble up" the performance gains of my new hardware. My apps run noticeably faster under XP than Vista-- and that's on the same machine (Intel Q6600/4GB RAM).

The security in Vista is better than XP, with the introduction of UAC, however... since it is so annoying: think popup hell; it is commonly turned off, thus negating any benefit it could have served.

We can go back and forth, round and round, but the bottom line is Vista, while a pretty solid OS, is not my cup of tea-- and apparently, it's also not a lot of other people's cup of tea either.


RE: Please
By TomZ on 6/20/2008 1:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My apps run noticeably faster under XP than Vista-- and that's on the same machine

That's obviously a lie to support your position. There are tons of web sites out there that compare the performance of apps running under XP and Vista, and there is generally little/no difference between the two.

This is also consistent with my experience, after having run XP on a number of machines for several years, and then upgrading those same machines and running the same apps under Vista for the past year or so. There is really no difference between performance under Vista or XP, except that Vista tends to load up apps faster than XP.


RE: Please
By 67STANG on 6/20/2008 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's obviously a lie to support your position. There are tons of web sites out there that compare the performance of apps running under XP and Vista, and there is generally little/no difference between the two.


What reason do I have to lie about my experience with Vista and XP?... I own both OS's... I don't need to support my position to anyone, simply explaining why Vista is no longer running on my main rig.

Your experience really means nothing to me. For every website claiming Vista on par or better in performance with XP, there's another saying XP is much faster... What's you're point? Shall I point you to websites that state the holocaust never happened? How about some crazy 9/11 conspiracy websites?

I've consulted with many different IT departments using both XP and Vista machines. Lots complaints from end users about Vista for various reasons, including performance related issues. (It's probably all in their heads).

quote:
There is really no difference between performance under Vista or XP, except that Vista tends to load up apps faster than XP.


That's obviously a lie to support your position.


RE: Please
By frobizzle on 6/20/2008 5:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
67STANG, don't worry about it. If you don't know by now, TomZ is just a Microsoft shill.


RE: Please
By TomZ on 6/20/2008 7:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly; I just like to present the other side of the argument - devil's advocate as they say. Most people get sucked into just seeing one side of an issue, and there is usually a bit more than that.

I also dislike when folks spread FUD like by making statements that Vista is slower than XP, which informed people know is not the case. That is the issue I have with the OP's statement. I personally gain nothing from presenting or defending Microsoft in this discussion (or any other).


RE: Please
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2008 4:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but MS renamed/moved many commonly used functions
What release of Windows wouldn't that describe?


RE: Please
By 67STANG on 6/19/2008 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know... I think most control panel icons/names stayed the same all the way from Windows 95 to Windows XP. Certainly the ones everyone used the most. The worst change is IIS in XP to IIS in Vista. Everything is layed out differently and is very hard to find-- especially when setting up SSL certs.


RE: Please
By tastyratz on 6/19/2008 5:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't just a vista bashing post, you are correct that the LARGEST portion of users with an issue are corporations... not because they have a lot of win2k- This can be because they have JUST winxp. Your post has a very narrow uneducated view. Work in a corporate environment in IT and you will see there's much more to it that Microsoft propaganda.

Windows Vista can wreak havoc on a corporate network and is NOT the same easy transition from xp as xp was from 2k.
It can cause problems with printer drivers for shared printers and shared resources between xp and vista machines.
Corporations also use a lot of custom applications such as one that might tie into a phone system for customer service, or similar. These are 1 off apps written for xp which will inquire a cost when they have to be done over again to work on vista.

Vista with the higher hardware requirements makes transitioning older machines more difficult leaving a split environment. This also means your paying more for a faster machine to get equivalent performance of a lower cost machine with xp. Why pay more for the same?

Vista has no true incentive for migration for a corporate upgrade. For as many tools they add to "ease" our jobs there's another one that's missing or breaks. A few new features and endless problems.

I do desktop support and system administration in a corporate environment which is fully windows xp (no win2k despite your post).

Yes there are definitely some things in vista I think are cool. Some stuff I would LOVE to have... For a personal users some things are easier and directx 10 makes it more gamer friendly. Don't forget also that since it is not well received it does not seem to have the same developer support. As much as people are moving to vista they still had a 6% business sector marketshare by year close 2007. This makes less incentive for hardware and software makers to upgrade and create products for vista when their larger market is xp.
It simply is not advantageous enough to switch, and is not cost effective for a business. Major labor, hardware, and licensing cost changes with minimal functionality gains.


RE: Please
By kc77 on 6/19/2008 9:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for making that post. That is I guess where I come from in terms of Vista. I support 200+ people between me and 1 other person. It's possible with Windows XP. It's mature, It's predictable. On the small number of machines that have Vista, we have problems with shared printers, especially with Direct Jet setups (mainly settings not taking hold). There's weird problems with other connections activating themselves when trying to access SQL Server 2000 and Network Discovery is like rolling dice. The problems in large numbers are quantifiable. I've done migrations from NT4 to Win2k and from Win 98 to XP and compared to Vista .. it's just no comparison from a driver, stability, and TCO standpoint.

I've tried to like Vista but I'm sorry it's just not ready yet and definitely was rushed. The UI is an absolute nightmare. I primarily use Linux at home (KDE GUI) so I know when I see a bad UI and Vista just needs work. There's like 4 different network screens, getting to Device Manager is harder than it should be and sharing a network connection... just shoot yourself. Connecting to Bluetooth devices in Linux is now actually easier than Vista ... imagine that.


RE: Please
By Airshark on 6/19/2008 11:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
Eh? The UI in Vista is demonstrably superior to XP in many ways. For example, you get to device manager in Vista precisely the same way you get to in XP - you right-click on "My Computer", choose "Properties", and click "Device Manager".

I just knew I'd read a linux fan post in this thread. <grin>


RE: Please
By Belard on 6/20/2008 6:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with modernizing and improving the interface. But with Vista, some things are not just moved, but are removed or require more work than needed or in previous versions. Some things in Windows XP (such as network properties) are the same in 2000 and Win98. Vista offers nothing that XP can do, and made up features (turbo boost) to make up for its short comings is not a good thing.

Office 2007 *IS and improvement over office 2003 and older. Yeah, there really isn’t much difference between Office 95, 97, 2000, XP and 2003. Yeah, that is why the development team that did office 2007 is working on Windows7 – that is how much Vista sucks.

AVG 8.0 is a nice UI upgrade over its previous 7.x version.

Vista is fixable, but as of now, its nothing more than a DRM, skin-job XP.


RE: Please
By Belard on 6/20/2008 6:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
That is what young people don’t get. Yeah, it’s good to have a new and improved OS, but it has to be NEW and improved. Windows98 was easily an improvement over Windows95. Driver support for XP wasn’t difficult since Windows2000 was already established. Which by the way is what will make Windows7 seem like a better OS. I hope they slim that sucker down. Needing 4-8GB of RAM to have a smooth running computer is stupid, when a 1~2GB XP will do just as well.

Get this, XP with 2GB RAM is a power User, rarely would all that RAM actually be used – and if needed, there is Windows XP x64. Yet, you can go into Wal-Mart and buy a $600~700 notebook or desktop with 3GB of RAM. Vista is not great because it has a good amount of 64bit support – its BAD that it needs 4-8GB of RAM just to be usable. Sure 4GB of RAM is cheap at $75~100. I remember the OLD days of paying $150 for 4mb of RAM or $800 for a 2mb RAM expander.

The VISTA UI does suck, it has some interesting things about it, but its kind of ugly. OMG, it has transparency! Like its something new? BTW, yeah – the Vista Start Menu is an improvement in many ways (but too easy to turn off your PC), but guess what? A 500K program gives that ability to XP. Type in text and it’ll launch programs or find the short-cuts in the start menu hmmm, just like vista!


RE: Please
By michal1980 on 6/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By frobizzle on 6/20/2008 5:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
And the Commander Keen games literally fly in a Vista environment! :-)


RE: Please
By kc77 on 6/21/2008 1:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
OMG is it bad that I remember Commander Keen?...LOL


RE: Please
By Icelight on 6/20/2008 10:19:06 AM , Rating: 2
The above post brought to you by: Someone who does not understand Vista's memory management techniques yet will act like (s)he does anyways.


RE: Please
By Belard on 6/22/2008 11:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
I understand its memory system. Its not impressive. Perhaps if it was a better OS it wouldn't be so bad.

Okay, on a Quad core CPU, XP can open an Application like MS Word in less than a second. So whats the point?


RE: Please
By Aloonatic on 6/20/2008 4:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with pretty much everything that you have in your post.

I support the IT infrastructure for a small business (15-20 people depending on how well things are going) and we have XP (Home & Pro) and Vista (Home and Business) and it can be a bit of a nightmare supporting the 2.

Even if things are laid out ever so slightly different, it still confuses the vast majority of people I work with. When you consider that even someone with an IT qualification struggled to identify a USB port (a sad indictment of the British education system, almost as bad as my spelling and grammar) you can see how many of the older people that work here are confused by any change.

Many of these people have struggled over the last couple of years to get themselves remotely computer literate and are now faced with another change, for very little gain. The amount of time I spend showing people how to suck eggs2.0 is more than a little annoying after a while.

We ran Win2k for a long time (and the change to XP was v simple) so you will find that nearly all our XP and even Vista machines are set ot windows classic theme, I guess bypassing the upgraded display hardware problem.

To be honest, we only have Vista because the new machines that were bought (mostly without my say so, even tho I have to support them) came with Vista pre installed and to be honest, I'd have preferred XP to have been the OS on all the new machines. It's not that I'm just lazy (no matter what anyone mite tell you) I just don't see the point in making more work for myself.

There is still little reason to have Vista for us, no need for DX10 (obviously) no need for a new fancy interface, no need for support for large amounts of RAM, no need for many of the security enhancements as we have bought 3rd party apps and hardware (which is probably even more true for large corporate enterprises) and our staff behave responsibly.

I cannot remember having 1 virus in the 5 years or so that I have been working here, and that is even with pervy old salesmen who were every keen to see what Anna Kournikova gets up to in her spare time.

The problem is, XP works very well and everyone is very familiar with it and there's no need for investing in new machines really.

The new PCs that we have bought (because of failure and expansion) are way more powerful than they need to be for what most people do here.

XP was/is just too good and useful so the reason for change is going to be a very difficult one to sell to me, let alone a corporate buyer with a tight (now credit crunched) budget.

For the home user however, yeah, I'll have no problem getting Vista when I finally get around to buying a new machine, put back again due to the girlfriend's summer holiday demands.


RE: Please
By Belard on 6/20/2008 6:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
Great post. I find it the Vista fan boys to be amusing. I think they maybe teenagers. I’ve yet to meet a “tech” that would put Vista on their own PCs. Many sales people I talk to, wish they had more XP systems to sell. I had some time with Vista, its slow, crumble some, kind of ugly in its own way and in the end doesn’t add any user experience or productivity.

Office 2007 is actually a neat product, the LOGO/Menu thingy is still a bit awkward – but that team worked on make the features in Office to be more usable. Vista is all flash, no substance. Its sad to see people impressed by the scrolling 3D task-switcher…. Ooooooh. There are things that are done in Linux that’ll smoke that, and I don’t have any Linux systems. But I’ve recently downloaded a Linux Live-CD to try out.

As someone who works on computer, I see no benefits to using Vista at home or on clients or friends. To upgrade two offices with 10 systems each would cost about $6000 ~ 12,000 because of hardware and software issues. And for what? I’ve heard complaints directly from people who had/have Vista.

I’ve asked Vista-lovers, What exactly does Vista offer over XP (other than DX10 which is being held from XP) What does it DO to make my work faster, easier, etc. The only thing I can come up with is that hardware has gotten cheaper. With a 4GB Quad core XP box, MS-Word loads up in less than a second. Computer shuts down in about 5 seconds, boots in about 15~20seconds.

Tsk tsk, there is a reason MS wanted to move XP or other OS and Office software to a subscription system for yearly licensing.

Well, I bought a new notebook for myself. I choose the cheaper and slower model with XP Pro over the Vista version. Saved about $200. 2GB vs 1GB, 250GB HD vs 120GB HD, GF8600gs card vs Intel onboard. I’m happy and will spend $20 to upgrade RAM to 2GB.

Hopefully Windows7 will be worthwhile MS operating system. Or better yet, I can use another OS with my apps.


RE: Please
By Airshark on 6/20/2008 12:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Gee, I've been a programmer formore than twenty years - does that make me a "tech"? Take a look at someplace like the EVGA forums or HardOCP if you can't find people who prefer Vista over XP, especially the 64-bit versions.

You want benefits to Vista? Forget DX10 - that's irrelevant to me. How about 64+64 file addressing - that means no more 2TB limit on volumes. That matters if you're running a media device. How about true native support for multiple monitors? How about being able to use more than 3.5GB of RAM, which XP cannot? Let's talk about the improved network stack which allows easier use of multiple simultaneous connections (try downloading seven or eight things at once in XP, and see how many of them are actually moving as opposed to waiting for the first four to finish).

How about stability? Vista has recovered from errors that blue-screened XP for me many times. And this is despite the fact that XP is as mature as it's going to get, and Vista just had its first service pack! And let's talk about disk management, something XP sucks, sucks, sucks at. Before I'd mention stuff like DX10, I think I'd bring up stuff like Avalon and direct-to-screen rendering, which isn't much implemented in apps yet - about as much as DX10 support is truly required in games. This will eventually speed up desktop apps tremendously.

Vista did have major flaws with video drivers (now largely addressed) and above all, price. MS did the best thing they could have by dropping its price dramatically.


RE: Please
By tastyratz on 6/20/2008 1:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Vista is just as capable of over 3gb ram as windows xp is.
Vista 32 has the same limitations xp 32 has.

Vista 64 overcomes that limitation, just as xp 64 does.

So to clarify, that is not any kind of advantage.
The 2tb limitation is also overcome with gpt support. This is present in xp 64, as well as vista. Also there are ways around this with specific raid controllers and alternate methods.

Stability is something I might have an alternate opinion on. Several recovery features are nice, but vista was rushed and it can really show some times.

However I do appreciate your post otherwise because there are good points. The improved network stack (note xp received black hole detection in sp3) does exist in vista, and the monitor support is nice. Drivers from usb and last reliance on floppy is nice as well. The point isn't that vista has no usable benefits, just none advantageous enough for justification in the balance of the scheme of things.


it doesn't matter
By goku on 6/19/2008 2:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of whether or not your system can run Vista, many people would prefer to run XP for a variety of reasons. With Compatibility being #1 and performance being #2. I don't know about you but I've found vista to be consistently slower than XP yet consuming 4 times the resources. Superfetch is merely a crutch for the bloated OS, disabling superfetch and or running an infrequently used application will clearly demonstrate that XP is superior in all around performance. For compatibility, a lot of programs that weren't broken by XP SP2 will be broken when you try to use them on Vista.

I don't like Vista for numerous others reasons and many others share my Views. It's too bad Dell doesn't want to be more aggressive in helping people get machines with XP pre loaded.




RE: it doesn't matter
By Denigrate on 6/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: it doesn't matter
By mmntech on 6/19/2008 2:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that people shouldn't have a choice about what operating system their computer runs? I find that ironic since Windows fanboys have consistently criticized Apple for doing the same thing.
Just because it's newer doesn't automatically make it better. If people want to keep using XP, what difference does it make? People are more comfortable with XP.

I personally took the advice given a few weeks ago and "jumped ship" to Ubuntu on my desktop. Compiz mops the floor with Aeroglass.


RE: it doesn't matter
By Denigrate on 6/19/2008 3:19:24 PM , Rating: 4
I'm saying that if you are upgrading hardware, why not upgrade software as well? Most software companies cease supporting software just like Microsoft does. It sucks telling people that their issues on a piece of software can't be fixed because the company is too cheap to move to the lastest update of the software, and Oracle, etc, no longer supports the version being used.

If people want to use XP, that's fine by me. I still use it on a couple at home, but new builds since Vista came out have Vista installed. Why pay for something that's lifespan is nearly done?

What kills me is these are the same exact arguments from when XP came out.


RE: it doesn't matter
By Nighteye2 on 6/19/2008 7:18:40 PM , Rating: 4
Upgrading software only makes sense if the new software adds value that the old one doesn't. Microsoft simply doesn't add such value. The only moment when it really makes sense to upgrade to new software, is when you run into limitations - so when programs start needing more than 3GB memory, THEN it makes sense to upgrade. Before that, it gains me nothing and it costs money.


RE: it doesn't matter
By TomZ on 6/19/2008 8:30:40 PM , Rating: 4
Let's reverse the argument: What's the benefit of not upgrading your OS when you get a new machine? I don't see how staying with an old OS gives you any benefit, assuming you don't have a serious software compatibility issue.

The new OS version (Vista) has some benefits compared to XP, and while they are maybe not compelling benefits, they do still exist and do give some value.


RE: it doesn't matter
By kc77 on 6/19/2008 9:33:33 PM , Rating: 3
The benefit is comfort of knowing all of your previous applications will work...better yet they can even assume that they will. Also, old software will most often times fly on better hardware. So i think that's why.


RE: it doesn't matter
By crystal clear on 6/21/2008 2:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see how staying with an old OS gives you any benefit, assuming you don't have a serious software compatibility issue.


A brilliant response from you TOM ! original indeed !

You expose the core of the problem/issue & I wonder how others fails to see it or realize the realities/facts that effect corporate users.

I remember one of the earlier comments on similar threads,which exposes this problem/realities.
Read below.......

Only 8% of the 380 developers surveyed by Evans Data Corp. in April are writing applications for Vista, while 49% are still writing applications primarily for the predecessor Windows version, XP. In addition, 11% said applications are mostly for Windows 2003, while 9% are focused on Linux-based apps.

Because of some well-publicized problems with Vista, many developers have taken a "wait and see" approach before deciding to write applications that can take advantage of new features in Vista, said John Andrews, president and CEO of Evans Data.

"The general theme has been a slower uptake [of Vista] in the user market so most people at the corporate enterprise and commercial world are staying with XP," Andrews said.

The survey also found that 29% of the developers surveyed will primarily target XP next year, with 24% targeting Vista. Overall, 67% of developers will primarily target a Windows version while 15% write applications for Linux.

"[Developers] see a market shift from XP to Vista and that is why they are saying they are going to be moving from XP to Vista [in 2009]," he added.



Note this-
Microsoft did not reply to a request for comment.


Read this!
By crystal clear on 5/15/2008 4:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/Companies+Adopt+Just+Say+...

Yes the single users/buyers are NOT affected by this problem, & as such your response is correct & applicable.

But your quote - assuming you don't have a serious software compatibility issue. ....thats the core of the problem.

Corperate & large institutions like Govt/Universites/Research organizations etc who come in the catergories of large VOLUMN licensies are affected seriously by this issue.

Now can DELL afford to loose this catergory of clientile ?


RE: it doesn't matter
By BMFPitt on 6/21/2008 9:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
If you write software for XP and it doesn't work properly in Vista, it's because you did it very poorly.
quote:
Corperate & large institutions like Govt/Universites/Research organizations etc who come in the catergories of large VOLUMN licensies are affected seriously by this issue.
Now can DELL afford to loose this catergory of clientile ?
Volume license holders would be silly to get anything other than Vista licenses. Vista license = "You can have either Vista or XP." XP license costs the same with no future upgradability. Any organization with a volume license should be using their own OS image anyway, and shouldn't care what's preinstalled, if anything.


RE: it doesn't matter
By TomZ on 6/21/2008 5:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you "like" my post.

The only reply I'd like to make is that, developers (and their managers) who are taking a "wait-and-see" attitude are making bad decision. Because after all, there is no question about whether Vista will inherit the Windows world; it's only a question of when .

In addition, it is also makes little sense to wait for Windows 7, since that OS will probably have even more breaking changes. So instead of taking two smaller steps, those who wait will have to take one big step. And also with that strategy, you alienate whatever percentage of your user base that is using Vista.

Less-than optimal strategies abound when you procrastinate and are passive about something like a next-generation OS version. Being proactive is the only logical decision, if you are serious about keeping up with your customers and keeping ahead of your competitors.


RE: it doesn't matter
By wallijonn on 6/24/2008 1:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Less-than optimal strategies abound when you procrastinate and are passive about something like a next-generation OS version. Being proactive is the only logical decision, if you are serious about keeping up with your customers and keeping ahead of your competitors.


Former: Windows ME.

Later: One stays ahead through finished products and services rendered, not what OS is being run. It's the finished product that matters. And if Vista can't accomplish the same task as XP in half the time, then what good is it? Yes, game companies will do DX10 to sell more games, but meanwhile most are switching over to consoles.

Being proactive costs time & money. In the case of Vista the IT department has to completely test every app. before it is released to production. This usually means that it will take 1 to 3 years before Corporate will roll out a new OS. Which usually coincides with a hardware refresh. But the local automotive parts department and the local supermarket can probably get away with DOS and W98 since they are basically being used as terminal services.


RE: it doesn't matter
By lifeblood on 6/19/2008 4:28:42 PM