backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 167 comment(s) - last by Stranged.. on May 5 at 9:00 AM

Its hard to keep a good old OS down

Last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer addressed the media and delivered controversial comments that customers simply did not want XP, so that Microsoft would likely discontinue its sales in June 30 as planned.  From the feedback on DailyTech alone, it was obvious that some users did want XP, particularly in IT scenarios, while others couldn't care less about its death.

In the end, the fate of XP really rests in the hands of retailers which will be most affected by its discontinuation.  These retailers are not sitting idly by and consenting to XP's death though.  In fact, they are looking for sneaky ways to prolong its life, apparently choosing by their actions to dissentingly opine against Ballmer's valuation of consumer interest in XP.

Leading computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett-Packard, both announced plans to use a loophole to allow computers to continue to be sold with Windows XP.  The key is a part of the Windows Vista license agreement, which grants "downgrade rights".  Essentially the company will be buying Vista and then "downgrading" the computers.  Thus the customer will essentially receive a PC with Windows XP that can be upgraded to Vista if they should so choose.

HP says that in the business sector it will continue to sell desktops, notebooks, and workstations "pre-downgraded" to XP, until July 30, 2009, over a year after Microsoft's planned discontinuation.  Dell will stop taking orders for XP machines as part of a default package on June 18, but will thereafter offer the same "pre-downgraded" option on its website.

Other major computer manufacturers have expressed interest in exploiting this loophole to satisfy those wanting XP.  However, they have not yet committed to plans and are still "exploring their options".

One unfortunate (in some people's mind) limitation of the downgrade loophole is that it only applies to Ultimate and Business versions of Vista.  Thus standard consumer machines will not be able to be downgraded to XP under the current rules. 

Also, the really challenging logistics crop up at retail stores.  Stores like Best Buy and Circuit City have already virtually done away with XP, but often get customers who want the option to pick XP instead.  However, in order to be within the law in terms of Microsoft's licenses, these retailers would somehow have to get the customer to specifically "ask" for a XP downgrade before offering it.  Thus floor models would be a virtual impossibility, limiting sales potential.

With the large public and business outcry over the discontinuation of XP, one would think Microsoft might consider changing its mind, especially giving Ballmer's comments, which indicated that the company would take customer feedback into consideration.  However, Microsoft seems content on casting a blind ear on dissenters' comments. 

Kevin Kutz, a director in Microsoft's Windows unit, blows off the possibility of an extension, and says that the downgrade option should satisfy customers.  Said Kutz, "While (computer makers) continue to see large numbers of customers making the transition to Windows Vista, there are some pockets--like small business--that need a little more time, and from what we've heard from our partners, the downgrade rights option fulfills that need."

The amount of demand for XP over Vista has surprised many manufacturers.  These manufacturers have struggled to try to find ways to satisfy it.  Manufacturer Lenovo, offers XP recovery disks as a downgrade option on some Vista models, and plans on continuing to do so through January 2009.

In the end for the consumer seeking XP, these developments mean there are still options, but they are becoming increasingly more difficult and hassle-prone. 

For Microsoft, the new manufacturer tactics are a mixed bag.  While they may be driving overall Microsoft OS sales, they undercut its Vista efforts.  Worse yet, they mean that the company may need to devote extra resources to XP-related  customer support, at a time when it is likely trying to pull resources off the XP side of things, to work on their new OS, Windows 7, likely due in 2010.



Comments     Threshold


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

This isn't new...
By drebo on 4/28/2008 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 4
Dell has been selling "Downgraded" PCs since Microsoft first announced the ability to downgrade Vista Business and Vista Ultimate to XP Pro...over a year ago.

This isn't a loophole, it's something that Microsoft has been letting Vista Business and Vista Ultimate users do nearly since the beginning. In fact, to activate, you have to call their tech support. This is available to everyone with an OEM copy of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate and has been since about a month after the Vista launch.




RE: This isn't new...
By mikefarinha on 4/28/2008 1:17:26 PM , Rating: 5
I agree with drebo, this is not a loop hole and PC Maker's aren't being sneaky in doing this. This is a course of action that Microsoft intentionally implemented.

Please stop over doing the sensationalism.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: This isn't new...
By daftrok on 4/28/2008 1:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Think about the future, man. Nobody wants XP we are fine with 2000. Nobody wants 2000 we are fine with windows 98. Nobody wants Blu ray we are fine with DVD. Nobody wants DVD we are fine with VHS. Nobody wants LCD monitors we are fine with CRT monitors.

Transition isn't easy. You can't make an OS work perfectly with every single CPU, GPU, motherboard, flash drive, etc. You can't just launch a crash free system. You have to do what you can with the time given to you, release it, and find out what's wrong and try to fix it. It's the only way to do it if you are launching an OS to billions of people.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2008 1:58:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Think about the future, man. Nobody wants XP we are fine with 2000. Nobody wants 2000 we are fine with windows 98. Nobody wants Blu ray we are fine with DVD. Nobody wants DVD we are fine with VHS. Nobody wants LCD monitors we are fine with CRT monitors.


Your trying too hard. Most of your examples are clearly leaps in technology. To claim Vista is the same leap over XP is pure fanboism. Infact, depending on who you ask and their situation, Vista was a clear side grade at best.

quote:
Transition isn't easy. You can't make an OS work perfectly with every single CPU, GPU, motherboard, flash drive, etc. You can't just launch a crash free system. You have to do what you can with the time given to you, release it, and find out what's wrong and try to fix it. It's the only way to do it if you are launching an OS to billions of people.


Is there a name for this planet you live on? Vista was released too late. And just when its getting all its kinks worked out, they go ahead and announce Windows 7. Its market saturation, at this point, is very poor. Windows XP stacks up very nicely, and at this point, is more viable on midrange hardware than Vista. Especially on Laptops and other portable devices which are more widely used today.

This isn't about the future. This is about a new OS so lackluster, that there is still a huge demand for the previous OS XP. Those examples you used are nothing like this. Not even close. How many new VHS players or CRT's compared to DVD and LCD are being made ?

I have " thought about the future ". I'm going to leapfrog Vista and go Windows 7. There is no reason, no reason at all, to stop using XP right now.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but to claim it isn't show's your blind and I'm guessing you've never actually used the OS on a daily basis... I'm not going to knock XP because I think it's a great OS, but Vista really is quite the OS leap over XP... In fact compared to the "leap" from 2k to XP we're talking about the amount of difference between a bi-plane and tri-plane... By comparison vista is a British spitfire. All XP ever was is a dressed up 2K installation, hell the XP kernal was only a minor version # higher than 2k for good reason, it was the same basic kernal with slightly improved resource management.


RE: This isn't new...
By Yawgm0th on 4/28/2008 2:22:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it was the same basic kernal with slightly improved resource management.


That's true. And to some extent, 2000 could be perfectly fine for use today. It wasn't marketed to the consumer as well as XP (or at all, really), and it wasn't as user-friendly as XP. XP replaced 2000 because it was better supported, fixed minor problems with 2000, and added minor (but nice) features. But theoretically, 2000 would have been fine. By about SP3, with maybe some of XP's shell enhancements added in, 2000 would be perfectly usable today. It could have been the OS to use for an entire decade. XP was indeed, only a minor improvement that didn't warrant a new OS.

Vista, on the other hand is a drastic departure from XP. It makes sweeping, undesirable (read: worse) changes to the user interface while implementing new features that hurt productivity more than help it due to how resource intensive it is. Vista simply does not offer substantial advantages over XP for the consumer, SMB, or enterprise. Its kernel "improvements" are grossly outweighed by its slow performance and unreasonable UI changes.

And for the record, I use 32-bit Vista ultimate on my laptop on a daily basis. I am perfectly satisfied with it as an OS (after tweaking the hell out it, of course). It runs just fine for the most part, and does what I need it to. But the interface changes still bother me, and quite frankly I can do everything I can in Vista faster and better in XP.

That's the crux of the matter. What can Vista do that XP can't? Very little.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:35:25 PM , Rating: 1
Have you tried actually learning to utilize Vista as intended... I'll agree in so far as going from XP to Vista is a shock at first at it takes time to learn, but if you put a little effort into learning the new system you quickly start learning not only is most everything XP had still actually there, but Vista has things XP doesn't to make life easier...

One case my sister brought up was that "In XP I used to be able to pull up a folder list when I click my computer by going to view => explorer bar => folder list"... In vista by default there is always the folder list visible in the window below favorate links, just click the folders button which features an up arrow and there you are folder list...

Something Vista has which XP does not is windows search integrated everywhere... Having trouble finding a control pannel item? Just type a search for it in the windows search box and chances are if you're even close it'll pull it up.


RE: This isn't new...
By Solandri on 4/28/2008 4:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
I'd say it's debatable which is "better". XP had a folder list (I assume you mean folder tree view) by default too. You just had to click the big Folders button once, and it would remember it.

The favorites panel in Vista isn't exactly intuitive either. If the pre-selected favorites are your favorites then all is fine. But if you should want to remove or add one, it's hardly intuitive as to how to do it. Ironic considering it's supposed to be a list of your favorites, not what Microsoft thinks will be your favorites. (hint: You have to browse the directory structure under Users/[Name]/Links)

Vista's file explorer search is one step forward, one step back IMHO. Defaulting the search to the current directory is a plus, but you could do the same thing in XP by right-clicking on a folder and selecting Search from the menu. Where Vista's search really takes a big step back is content search - searching for words within files. It defaults to a filename search. As far as I've been able to figure out, only after it's completed that search does it give you the option to search within files. The same goes for advanced search options - you're not presented with them until it has completed a search.

Of course you can immediately get at the advanced search options if you start a search window directly, but they've removed this from the right-click menu. You're forced to go through the Start menu, meaning there's no quick and convenient way to access advanced search options and constrain it to a specific folder. (You can also WindowsKey-F, but most casual users don't know that, and you still have to select the folder you wish to search manually.) And even there, you have to search filenames first before you're allowed to search within files.

The system options aren't very helpful either. Either all your searches are filename only, are both filename and content searches (meaning all your searches will be slow), or you have to turn the built-in indexing on. There's no way to default to filename searches while picking and choosing when you want to do a content search. The only practical way to get content searches is to turn on indexing, which is one of the big reasons Vista seems slow on a lot of people's systems.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, as I've said your milage will vary with search, for my purposes it works very well... As far as searching file contents I'm sad to say no verion of windows has ever provided adiquate support for my needs (i.e. I'm a developer searching code and making file lists based upon them) so as far as file contents searches I've been 100% cygwin/grep for a long time now (since win2k).

at least in my experience, Vista is a huge step forward on the whole. Enough that frankely I don't really enjoy using Windows XP at all any more.


RE: This isn't new...
By Belard on 4/29/2008 12:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
Google Agent Ransack (or from download.com) - Download it, install it on XP or Vista. It works on both (don't know about 64bit vista)... You'll love it.

1) Add a listing in the Right Click mouse menu when in a folder.

2) Give you the Find functions from Win98 with the Advance Find functions right from the get-go.

3) Will Find ANY file you are looking for, even the ones that MS has blocked from "Vista Search". A life saver, it was the only way to find certains files as vista puts things in different places.

PS; While I rag on Vista as much as is deserves, its placement of the user files is nicer... but basicly a different and cleaner from "C:\Documents and Settings" otherwise, vista spends more time looking pretty than functional.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... Based on what you posted here you obviously have no clue as to what Windows 2000 is verses XP which makes it impossible for me to accept anything you have to say at all about vista.


RE: This isn't new...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 5
A few points.

1. Win2K wasn't really a consumer OS; it was oriented to the workstation/server market. If you want to compare XP to its predecessor, Windows ME is a more apt choice. By that, XP was a tremendous leap forward.

2. Yes Vista has some great enhancements under the hood. But the fact remains that, to many consumers-- especially in the business arena-- they just don't see the compelling need to upgrade.

As OSes evolve, upgrading becomes simultaneously more painful and less rewarding. That seems a natural progression. I don't think we'll ever return to the days when the entire consumer base automatically upgraded as each new version hit the market.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 3:15:35 PM , Rating: 3
I don't usually agree with much masher has to say, but as usual, he put it in an eloquent logical fashion.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0