Microsoft to Allow PC Makers to Downgrade to XP

mytrip pointed out a News.com story about a new Microsoft program to allow PC makers to downgrade from Vista to XP if they so choose. They're still pushing the new version of Windows very hard, but the option now exists for PC resellers to offer the now venerable OS. This is especially interesting as the article points out that OEM licenses for XP officially run out at the end of January. "Hewlett-Packard also started a program in August for many of its business models. 'For business desktops, workstations and select business notebooks and tablet PCs, customers can configure their systems to include the XP Pro restore disc for little or no charge,' HP spokeswoman Tiffany Smith said in an e-mail. She said it was too soon to gauge how high customer interest has been. 'Since we've only been offering (it) for about a month, we don't really have anything to share on demand.' A Microsoft representative confirmed there were some changes made over the summer to the options computer makers have with respect to XP, but the representative was not immediately able to elaborate on those changes."

"Allow"?

Hasn't Dell been doing this ever since Vista came out?

-jcr

Not the whole time

Originally, Dell switched entirely to Vista just like everyone else. Then after a month or two they strong-armed M$ into letting them offer XP to their business customers. (I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in to the conversation that got that concession out of M$.) This is just M$ offering the same thing to other vendors, who are probably losing a lot of business to people who want XP and can only get it from Dell.

Re:Not the whole time

It depended on the PC model. Where I work, we have a small business account with Dell. We could get XP on higher-end workstations we use for 3-D modeling and the like, but we had to get Vista on the lower-end PCs we use on the factory floor, until Dell relented a month or so after Vista hit. I know our IT guy sent some very strongly worded emails to our Dell sales rep asking for XP on all computers, and I'm sure they were getting the same from many of their business customers.

Re:Not the whole time

> In my workplace, we'd LIKE Vista

Please tell me where you work so I can avoid it.

Cheers.

Re:Not the whole time

(I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in to the conversation that got that concession out of M$.) This is just M$ offering the same thing to other vendors, who are probably losing a lot of business to people who want XP and can only get it from Dell.

Me too :(

You know, many experts predicted people will skip Vista and go for the next Windows (if for any at all). And those aren't the kinda experts which damn the latest Windows version each time as a sport.

I'm a Microsoft fanboy, but I also feel my stomach turning upside down seeing what they did with Vista as a whole.

And the fact this happened means people actively reject Vista en masse, for Microsoft this means they will have to do big time correction on their Vista projected sales (which included all previously guaranteed OEM sales). One more step into confirming this "people will skip Vista" theory.

Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 years.

Quote: "... I also feel my stomach turning upside down seeing what they did with Vista as a whole."

As others have suggested, maybe it is better to skip Vista completely, the non-drug method of curing stomach upset.

Dr. Death has arrived. After only 3 years, requiem for an OS: Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death, ready to kill software prematurely that customers want to use. He has decided that Windows XP will die soon [microsoft.com]: January 31, 2008.

The huge number of bugs in Windows XP before SP2 was very expensive for us. If I remember correctly, Windows XP SP2 fixed more than 630 bugs, and some of the fixes were not documented. The really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after SP2 was released, on August 25, 2004 [microsoft.com]. That means we have gotten only 3 years of good use from Windows XP.

Rule number one in dealing with Microsoft: Unless forced by circumstances, never move to a new version of Windows until the second service pack is released. Let other people have the grief.

(Someone said that rule will just cause Microsoft to release service packs much more often. If that happens, it may be necessary to change the rule to "until the X service pack...")

It has been 3 years since WinXP Service Pack 2 was released, even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, a difficult problem when there is no internet connection or only a dial-up connection. The Windows XP updates of just August's Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes. Microsoft seems to have delayed releasing an SP3 for Windows XP to try to discourage people from using Windows XP.

New versions of Linux are released to make a better OS. New versions of Microsoft Windows seem to have the purpose of 1) killing the old version and 2) using more CPU power so that it is necessary to buy new hardware. When you partner with Microsoft, you partner with a company that may sometimes choose to be your enemy, in my opinion.

It is not only the vulnerabilities that are expensive. Microsoft's adversarial behavior is expensive, too.

Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year

Dr. Death has arrived. After only 3 years, requiem for an OS: Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death, ready to kill software prematurely that customers want to use. He has decided that Windows XP will die soon [microsoft.com]: January 31, 2008.

I'm not trying to dispute the spirit of your post, but I think saying XP "will die" on January 31 is "greatly exaggerating." That's just the date Microsoft will stop making XP available to retailers and OEMs. That's not the date MS stops support.

According to MS's Windows XP Pro lifecycle page [microsoft.com], "mainstream support" for XP lasts until April 14, 2009 and "extended support" (which includes security updates and paid support [microsoft.com]) lasts until at least April 8, 2014 (the same dates apply to XP Home). That's actually a heck of a lot longer than any other OS AFAIK.

The really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after SP2 was released, on August 25, 2004. That means we have gotten only 3 years of good use from Windows XP.

Since XP will continue to get security updates, paid support, and free knowledgebase support until at least April 2014, you should be able to get at least a few more years of use from XP. If you need a bunch of additional licenses, order them before January 31 (to be safe). If you only need a few additional licenses, it should be easy to find old stock after that date.

That said, Linux distros have gotten a heck of a lot better since XP was released nearly six years ago. Also, desktop versions of Ubuntu LTS guarantee 3 years of support, which is pretty darned good for a free download that's updated every 2 years (LTS versions).

Article has that backwards.

Users are permitted to upgrade from Vista to XP.

See, fixed.

Downgrade?

Why do they insist on calling it a downgrade?

Re:Downgrade?

the next OS,which "7" is supposed to be: something new, something improved (one hopes :cross fingers:).

When driving down a hiway at night Deer are sometimes caught in your headlights. They stand, transfixed, as you approach. You have to honk your horn and slow down to give them a chance to get out of their trance and leave the road.

So is it with some folks who, when MS releases PR memos about vaporware, fix their vision on this "future" OS, freezing themselves out of any current improvements. Just what MS wants.

Windows 7???

I thought this was a joke and then looked it up and it's actually true: The post-Vista version of Windows in development has been dubbed "Windows 7 [osnews.com]. So it's really true -- the Windows OS is finally catching up to that revolutionary MacOS from 1991, System 7 [wikipedia.org]. Windows users will finally be able to take advantage of such innovations as QuickDraw and Balloon Help [wikipedia.org] Congratulations Microsoft!!

Re:Downgrade?

Windows 7 will be the product that decides the future of Microsoft. They simply can't afford two crappy releases in a row.

As opposed to how many in the past?

Re:Downgrade?

Same reason they use words like "Genuine Advantage", or "doubleplusungood".

Re:Downgrade?

You are talking about the warm fuzzy feeling of words like 'Trusted Computing'?

Downgrade?

I'll downgrade to XP in the same way I'll "downgrade" to a first-class airline ticket or a supersized meal.

On the other hand though, it is Microsoft making a correct move by giving consumers what they actually want while keeping the marketing in line with their "forward thinking."

Re:Downgrade?

The problem is that Vista isn't being seen as a useful upgrade by microsofts biggest customer, the business world. They don't want it.

In a few years they will, just like they avoided XP till it had been around for a while. Its not that they don't like it, they just don't feel they can rely on it yet.
A new OS is a risk, even if it comes from the major player in the OS world. Yup, people here may not like it, but windows is the standard bearer, Linux is still a minority everywhere but serverspace.

Home users get the fallout from this. The simple fact is that vista would be a big improvement for most home users who are in the 'don't care, so long as my pc works' class. People who don't want it are usually reacting to the negative press and not realising that most of this doesn't really apply to them, vista will do everything they want, since what they want is a pc that will browse the web and play games. XP does this too, but the security model in XP is a disaster, Vista at least improves on it a bit. Linux fans may be angered by this, doesn't stop it being true.

I don't want vista either, I'd rather stick with XP, but I'll be buying it next year, several copies in fact. So will almost everyone on slashdot, unless they're really linux only bods. Hardly anyone falls into that group at the moment. I like my games, and Linux just doesn't do that well.

Re:Downgrade?

I like my games, and Linux just doesn't do that well.

I'd be careful on Vista as well, then. My personal addiction has been World of Warcraft for some time, and when I upgraded to Vista on my home system, my frame-rates tanked. My system is not top of the line, nor close even. But it was able to run WoW on OK graphics settings, and get playable frame-rates anywhere but the worst of places, while I was running XP. After a few months of dealing with the performance hit, I downgraded to XP. My frame-rates are back to reasonable, at higher graphics settings than I had been using in Vista (which I had lowered to make the game playable) and higher frame-rates.
Now, this probably has more to do with the drivers for my graphics card (6600GT) than the OS itself, but it is an issue which will keep me from upgrading.

Not quite...

Business users can see that Vista will:

a) Cost them millions.

b) Most likely cause a lot of incompatibility problems.

c) Not increase their productivity one bit even when they finally have it all working.

It's a lose-lose proposition for them.

buggy!

that OEM licenses for XP officially run out at the end of January.

See, I know MS develops buggy code. Even their license generator stop working!

I just setup Vista for a friend

I understand the plight. After setting up Vista for the first time the other night I could not believe the amount of GUI changes in Vista. Especially when it came up on a cable modem PPPoE. Took me an hour to figure it out, it though we had a DSL dial up. Don't look for properties any more in the OS, they are now calling it "Settings" and is where the help used to be on many screens.

People would have less learning UI if they loaded Fedora 7 or RHat.

Sure glad I bought my last PC when I did. Still had XP on it with a promise of a free upgrade. Have the new disks. Just never applied the upgrade. Will not be applying any time soon either.

XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous

I need to buy a new system (current motherboard got damaged, might as well upgrade), and I've been weighing my options. Vista is simply not an option at all. XP Pro 64-bit is orphaned, with virtually nonexistent driver support. XP is 32-bit, and I already was running Win2k with 4GB of RAM (well, as much as it will use of that) and need to grow.

After all these years of Windows desktop and Linux here & there on servers and VMs, I'm going to finally make the jump the Linux desktop, VMWare'ing Windows where I need it. I don't play PC games anymore (besides minesweeper), I'm going to get a quad CPU with 8GB of RAM, and Microsoft simply isn't offering anything viable for that configuration.

Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous

• I don't care if Vista will run "extremely well", it will take up far more resources than any other option, and I'm running very CPU and memory intensive applications. I'm getting a powerful machine to run my applications, not just to run a lumbering OS.
• I have a bunch of peripherals and don't want to risk driver problems.
• I do not want to be encumbered with DRM and other "trusted computing" issues with basic system configuration, troubleshooting, and software development, nor in my media recording, archives, and playback.
• I run a lot of not-very-mainstream software that doesn't explicitly support Vista yet, but does support Win32 and Linux.
• In the little that I've played around with doing simple things on Vista on store display boxes, it has either crashed or thrown security exceptions at me. I think it reflects a lot of the negative responses I've seen here from Vista users here and elsewhere as consistent usability, stability, and access problems.

Venerable?

Sorry, I know a lot of people think it's better than Vista, but when did XP become venerable?? Is there some secret meaning for that word that I don't know?

So very different...

I look at Windows Vista and realize how vastly different it looks from Windows XP. The same goes to my customers that I speak with, they are confused as well with all of the graphical and placement changes. Windows XP started a very solid trend on what the look of Windows is, but Vista shattered that.

Take a look at Mac OS X. The interface is pretty much the same for more than ten years. There have been improvements, but the basic functionality has stayed the same with some graphical upgrades.

Re:So very different...

"Take a look at Mac OS X. The interface is pretty much the same for more than ten years. "

Um, OS X hasn't even been around for ten years. It was introduces in 2000 or 2001..
And OSX's interface is just as different from that of its predecessor, Mac OS 9, as Vista's is from XP's. There was plenty of whining in the Mac community over the "step back" that OSX 10.0 was. (It was indeed very much slower than Mac OS 9, but I think it's interface blew away Mac OS 9's).

a problem with vista?

If end users are requesting that they get XP instead of Vista? What does that tell you? When so many people ask for XP over Vista that dell starts to offer it. Let me clarify this: "Don't know nothing" end users are asking for something else. That just speaks volumes for the resistance against Vista.

Who would have thought?

Its interesting that Microsoft might have got several things right in windows XP and have out done themselves. That or maybe they just waited way to long to have the whole world just switch out everything. People tend to hate change, and maybe similar to some not wanting to use linux because of change are not interested in changing to Vista. Maybe this is the chance for Linux and mac to break further into the market. Or people just don't want to spend $2000 on a receptionists computer just so that they can chat, browse, and view docs. (disclaimer: And not I don't think that's all they do)

News?

How the hell is this news, downgrade rights have been available for consumers of ultimate and business since launch, it is how they get so many corporate sales of vista (since they ignore the vista part and just load xp pro as always.

I had one of the senior MS sales people for Australia recommend for our store to buy a 1 user "mass license" and then use that for installing downgrade rights, this is an option that has been open to OEMers for quite a while, its just they are finally waking up and realising that not everyone wants the latest POS from Microsoft.

Re:News?

The news is that computers will be sold with XP installed. Thats a huge difference to getting a recovery disc and doing it yourself.

Not mature enough yet...

It boils down to the fact that Vista is simply not mature enough yet. I run XP Pro and am happy with it and I have no intentions of switching to Vista anytime soon. Now in a year or two when it's up to service pack 2 AND you can run DOSBox inside of XPBox AND software compatibilities are a thing of the past because Vista is the target not XP then I'll upgrade.
And this old XP machine will probably become an Ubuntu box then.

Re:Not mature enough yet...

It boils down to the fact that XP is simply not mature enough yet. I run 2000 Pro and am happy with it and I have no intentions of switching to XP anytime soon. Now in a year or two when it's up to service pack 4 AND you can run DOSBox AND software compatibilities are a thing of the past because XP is the target not 2000 then I'll upgrade.
And this old 2000 machine will probably become a Mandrake box then.

The Appropriate Successor to Windows 98 SE?

Anyone else foresee the re-release of Vista sometime in the future? I mean, it's failed with businesses (no one in their right minds is installing it for their lay corporate workers). It's failed with enthusiasts. Why not just change the UI back to what made Windows "Windows", make some resource requirement adjustments, work with major companies on driver support for a a year, and release it like an entirely new OS. It worked before. And we, for the most part, loved 98SE.

I have no real problems with Vista...

I waited an extra month or two to purchase my new Dell XPS M2010 just to get Vista since it was on the horizon and as far as I could tell all my hardware/software worked for the most part or new drivers were already in beta for one of my Epson printers. I would have not waited six months for Vista, nor do I have any plans to go out and purchase it for any of my other machines, but I can't say I'm unhappy that I waited a month to get it on my new-ish system. The Vista Media Center is EXCELLENT and in my opinion is unmatched by any other software or dedicated box. Microsoft could dominate the PVR market if they released a Zune TV device that basically booted straight into WMC without the Windows UI anywhere to be seen. Let me sync recorded shows to a Zune 2.0 device and Apple's hold on the handheld media device market would begin to wane. Some of the adjustments to Explorer and the Start menu are nice and improve the usefulness of both a little bit. My biggest problems with Vista aren't Microsoft's doing, they are the third party developers who dragged their feet even knowing full well that Vista was coming out and they knew what they had to do to make their software compatible. There really is little Microsoft can do to get developers to use user accounts properly (which have been a apart of NT from the start, Vista is the first time Microsoft has enforced their use). I really don't see the need for anyone other than corporate customers to downgrade to XP.

Re:I have no real problems with Vista...

Microsoft could dominate the PVR market

The really bizzare thing is that linux does instead. I have to put it down to licence costs and slow development on the part of MS - an updated Windows CE could be doing the job if they had put in enough effort.

OS version revision

This just goes to show you that Joe Consumer out there will use whatever he is comfortable with. I know several non-technically-inclined people who took advantage of an "OS version revision (not a downgrade necessarily)" to XP just because they don't like how slow their new computers were running and they didn't like the San Quintenesque security of Vista.

I also know several people who still use Windows 98 on their home machines just because they like it. Sure they can't get new Windows Updates and finding new software is damn near impossible but they like it.

On the other hand, I do know a handful of people who like Vista and actually prefer it over XP. Not for the security, but for the "WOW". Of course their systems are superlative in every respect to performance.

This "use what you like" thing may be why Mac OSs do so well. I mean, what really has changed from UI, performance and security perspectives that can be easily seen since OS 10.0?

Change is a bitch. I know. I know. Get off my lawn.

"S"P3

So what are the chances that this refocusing will means that the friendly people at Microsoft kindly force down peoples throats "security updates" or "new features" that are the hallmark of Vista's 'digital-content protection comes before basic OS functionality' program to either:

A: subtly cripple XP in the name of security to make Vista less unappealing; or

B: Bring XP 'up-to-date' with Vista's most important 'features' so they can get their new DRM platform either way?

Vista = New Coke?

Or Xp = Slurm Classic?

      Brett

Making Vista viable

1. Ultimate, Premium, Basic, Business, Enterprise... versioning rip-off. If Xp Home vs.Pro didn't piss enough people off?

2. Licensing - A 1x transfer? Businesses should stay away just for that reason alone.

3. Resource inflation. The amount of hardware you have to throw at Vista is ridiculous.

4. UAC. The epitomy of the Are you sure? box.

5. WinFS? ZFS?

6. The changes in the windows interface since 98 is schizophrenic

I like the search implementation. I would guess if you bought ME you'll buy Vista. Otherwise there's a _LOT_ of work that needs to be done to convince me (and my customers I support).

It wouldn't surprise if the OEM's want it

Not so much because of "huge" business demand - businesses would probably be happy to sit on their hands for a while and let vista mature - but the OEM's, HP et all., will not want businesses to sit on their hands (i.e. not spend money), and if a "Vista only" machine is forcing buyers to be more cautious when ordering 100 new machines then HP will want XP back in the catalogue to make the sale a bit more likely.

This is total nonsense - MS *HAD* TO DO IT!!

Last evening, I met with the IT chief of a large transnational bank, for whom we develop Enterprise code. I asked him about what software platforms are envisaged in the long run, and the process behind evaluation. He said, "Basically we have a Red-Amber-Green colour scheme for software."

Under this scheme, Vista is Red, so is IE7, ActiveX controls, Visual Basic and Visual Basic .Net; I was surprised to learn that Visual Studio as a whole is 'Amber'! SuSE and RedHat Linux are both green, so is PHP, RubyonRails, Eclipse, Websphere etc. Interestingly, he said the IT staff of several banks get together and discuss matters affecting common issues like this.

So I guess it's the OEMs who are FORCED TO OFFER XP and XP-compatible hardware, drivers and support to their biggest customers. This isn't some gift of charity from His Billness or the new acting Chair-man from Microsoft. Nobody sane would like to willingly downgrade to Vista - simple as that.

I'm a Vista Power User

OOh, I figured out how to burn bootable dvd and cd iso's without any 3rd party programs.

Seriously, I just consider it another incremental upgrade. I haven't touched B itlocker and the "Ultimate" apps are vaporware. Its not such a bad OS. Bill Gates scared away all the corporate customers with the "Wow factor" crap. He should have just concentrated on useful new features like the ability to get a commmand window at any folder. IIS people might have some interest in things like that.

And I have not had any problems running Office 2003 and other MS apps that don't require drivers. In fact today, I just got service pack 3 for Office 2003.

What's so good about XP?

People are starting to get all nostalgic about XP. This is weird. It's still the same shitty OS it was 12 months ago. What's next - DOS 3.3?

To put it more constructively than some /.ers

XP has been several years in the wild, Vista, not even one.

XP is a solid platform, even if it isn't as secure by design, it still works and can be secured with the right knowledge (i.e don't do stuff as 'root')

Of course Microsoft will offer the more stable platform is customers really want it. Who is dumb enough to really think Vista is yet as mature as XP yet - and even with the same level of support, even now? Either way, the licence fees are the same and go to the same place, so guess what, Microsoft still win. Nothing to see here, move along please.

Hubris

Microsoft's marketing machine has always tried to convey the idea that they are the de facto standard for everything, much as IBM tried to do in the 1980s. It didn't last long back then for IBM, and it is wearing thin for Microsoft today. If you really are the de facto standard, you are able to force things down the customers' throats and charge them an arm and a leg for it. When there are alternatives, such as a perfectly serviceable WinXP in this case, it is no longer that easy. Microsoft has to back down because a) XP works perfectly alright for most folks, especially on newer hardware, and b) Mac laptops (and to a much lesser extent GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu) are distracting eyes and pocketbooks.

It's the natural evolution of a market. Frankly, it took a perversely long time, most likely due to Microsoft's monopolistic hold on pre-installed operating systems. They can't complain. They made a few bucks while it lasted, and are making more still.

I'm a downgrader.

Several weeks ago I had to buy a system from a local brick & mortar store because one of our accounting systems was beginning to fail. However all of the systems were preloaded with Vista and the company that developed our accounting software wasn't "certified" that is would work on Vista yet. So I had to buy Windows XP erased the preload Vista and then migrated all of the files from the old system and it started right up. This made me think, why does a hardware manufacture have to load the OS on the system. I know there is some stupid marketing agreement between MS and the HW manufacture but shouldn't the buyer have some say in which version of OS they have to load? I know that Vista is the latest and greatest but like other major OS updates in other operating systems developers the applications and hardware drivers may not work when upgraded so like most IT dept and people I have to wait for the application to be "certified" for Vista. MS and the HW manufactures need to stop forcing us to buy only certain configurations in stores and have some flexibilit