Windows XP SP3

[Barabajagal]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9040318

[Newby]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9040318

So, what downgrades does Microsoft allow? Owners of the OEM editions of Vista Business and Vista Ultimate can downgrade to Windows XP Professional, including Tablet PC Edition and x64 Edition. Only the OEM editions qualify for a downgrade, so if you purchased a new PC with either Business or Ultimate preinstalled, you're in like Flynn.

Those who aren't: All users of Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium, and anyone who upgraded to Vista using a retail edition of any of the operating system's SKUs. You are, as they say, SOL.

So, basically, nobody qualifies. And the other option (which took half the article) is to buy XP yourself and "downgrade" which nullifies the "free" part.

Awesome link.

[Barabajagal]

Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.

[Warrior]

Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.

Applied to a very small percentage of the people. The demand for an XP downgrade was spun to look like nobody wanted Vista, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

I don't think anyone can with a straight face argue that Vista does not have countless improvements over XP, people who dislike Microsoft for whatever reason however will look to attach to any small criticism.

Stop reading Slashdot so much and start looking at actual sales figures.

[K]

Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.

Applied to a very small percentage of the people. The demand for an XP downgrade was spun to look like nobody wanted Vista, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

I don't think anyone can with a straight face argue that Vista does not have countless improvements over XP, people who dislike Microsoft for whatever reason however will look to attach to any small criticism.

Stop reading Slashdot so much and start looking at actual sales figures.

It's not hard to realize why Vista is selling -- it's because it's almost impossible to buy a new PC with anything else!  End users don't buy a version of Windows at retail; they use whatever comes with the machine they bought.  The fact that Microsoft backpedaled and let Dell continue selling XP for 3 months after Vista was released should tell you something.

[Warrior]

Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.

Applied to a very small percentage of the people. The demand for an XP downgrade was spun to look like nobody wanted Vista, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

I don't think anyone can with a straight face argue that Vista does not have countless improvements over XP, people who dislike Microsoft for whatever reason however will look to attach to any small criticism.

Stop reading Slashdot so much and start looking at actual sales figures.

It's not hard to realize why Vista is selling -- it's because it's almost impossible to buy a new PC with anything else!  End users don't buy a version of Windows at retail; they use whatever comes with the machine they bought.  The fact that Microsoft backpedaled and let Dell continue selling XP for 3 months after Vista was released should tell you something.

You state that users will use whatever comes with the machine they bought, then go on to say that the fact that XP was sold after Vista was released should say something.

Which is it? Do users not care, or does it "say something"?

Additionally, your first argument is not very valid today seeing as there's plenty of Linux OEM offerings out there (Asus EeePc, Dell Ubuntu Deal, etc).

I disagree with the notion that users don't care what's installed on their system. There's plenty of alternatives out there in the form of Linux and Apple's hardware/software bundles.. why is it then that sales figures still lean in favor of Vista?

Usually at this point, people will become dismissive and say that "It's not about Sales or Marketshare!" yet they will jump at the chance to swipe at Vista over that exact same thing.

[iago]

Every non-technical person I know who's bought a new computer either hates it or has bought XP to replace it. That's all I can really say about it, I've never personally used it.

[Warrior]

Every non-technical person I know who's bought a new computer either hates it or has bought XP to replace it. That's all I can really say about it, I've never personally used it.

That may very well be true, and I'm not contesting that some people may dislike it. I'm simply questioning K's own logic through hypothetical situations.

Vista's not this perfect Operating System, but it's also not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It'd be more believable if these exact same issues were not said for Windows XP (Compatibility, UI differences, Performance) and those die hard Windows 2000 users were not now Windows XP Users.

[K]

You state that users will use whatever comes with the machine they bought, then go on to say that the fact that XP was sold after Vista was released should say something.

Which is it? Do users not care, or does it "say something"?

It doesn't have to be one or the other.    A large percentage of people don't care or are ignorant about what OS comes with the new PC they bought.  A smaller percentage (maybe of more important business users?) complained enough to Dell to get XP back.

Additionally, your first argument is not very valid today seeing as there's plenty of Linux OEM offerings out there (Asus EeePc, Dell Ubuntu Deal, etc).
I disagree with the notion that users don't care what's installed on their system. There's plenty of alternatives out there in the form of Linux and Apple's hardware/software bundles.. why is it then that sales figures still lean in favor of Vista?

1. Go to Best Buy.
2. Pick out a laptop PC
3. Tell me what operating system it comes with.

Actually, don't bother.  If you go to BestBuy.com you can see that they sell 62 different laptops with some version of Vista on it.  Only 2 laptops come with Windows XP. 
They sell 11 mac laptops.
They sell a total of 3 linux laptops -- the Asus Eee pc in 3 different colors -- and it's only available online.

I wonder why people don't by Ubuntu from Dell?   If you go to dell.com and try to configure a computer, it's not even given as an option.  You have to select "Open Source PCs" from the tiny menu on the bottom of the page.  Once you click that link, you get the message:

The main thing to note is that when you choose open source you don't get a Windows® operating system. If you're here by mistake and you are looking for a Dell PC with Windows, please use the following link.

   Shop Dell PCs with Windows

If you confirm that you really, really, want to buy an Ubuntu machine, you get the choice of 3 laptops or a desktop.  They sell 11 laptops and 16 desktops with Vista.

No average consumer shopping for a computer is going to pick one of these machines.

[iago]

Speaking of that, has anybody tried that Eee PC? I've only heard about it incidentally, from people saying, "it's like a Eee PC" or something similar, I'm wondering if they're worthwhile looking into.

[Warrior]

It doesn't have to be one or the other.    A large percentage of people don't care or are ignorant about what OS comes with the new PC they bought.  A smaller percentage (maybe of more important business users?) complained enough to Dell to get XP back.

Business users complaining about to a desktop OEM? That doesn't sound logical to me. Additionally, since it's a small percentage then it's not really saying much.

No average consumer shopping for a computer is going to pick one of these machines.

It's a little thing called supply and demand, if the demand for Linux was higher then they'd invest more into heavier advertising and offering a wider selection of packages.

It doesn't make much sense to launch an unproven OS in terms of consumer attachment into the market that degree, OEMs are testing the water right now.

Apple/Linux sure like to make themselves seem like a big deal, but they're quick to downplay their own significance in an attempt to rationalize a poor attachment rate.

Mac does not succeed because it's on a closed, overpriced platform.
Linux does not succeed because it's not there yet in terms of usability.

You don't conform to the Windows paradigm, yet you expect to be distributed under the same terms?
The point is that there is choice, and it's directly proportional to the amount of demand there is for said Operating System.

[Barabajagal]

It's true... Linux needs a lot of work still... Almost every time I use it, something hangs or crashes, and needing to go into konsole to do menial tasks isn't very idiot-friendly.

However, Windows Vista is still shit, and everyone I know who had it come with a comp they bought recently (4 laptops and 3 pcs), I had to wipe and install XP for. The only copy of Vista within a 20 mile (no joke) radius of me is on a VM on my PC.

[vuther.de]

Warrior, just give it up man, you've been defending Vista since it ever came out.

[Warrior]

Warrior, just give it up man, you've been defending Vista since it ever came out.

Then why is it you nag me constantly about how to get an illegal copy?

[Warrior]

It's true... Linux needs a lot of work still... Almost every time I use it, something hangs or crashes, and needing to go into konsole to do menial tasks isn't very idiot-friendly.

However, Windows Vista is still shit, and everyone I know who had it come with a comp they bought recently (4 laptops and 3 pcs), I had to wipe and install XP for. The only copy of Vista within a 20 mile (no joke) radius of me is on a VM on my PC.

I respect your opinion, I disagree though. I think Vista could of been a bit better, but it's been made out to seem much worse than it actually is.

I think if you run a fully patched install (There have been numerous performance / reliability patches) then you're pretty much good to go.