Windows Vista Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

[Terry R.]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

The date and time was 10/8/2008 7:26 AM, and on a whim, Frank pounded
out on the keyboard:

> +Bob+ wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:19:35 +1000, "Sunny" <wombathouse@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you had read and understood the offer i.e.
>>> You get two OS - Vista and WinXP CDs.
>>
>> The point is that most of us don't want Vista, so we're effectively
>> paying an extra $100 to get XP.
>
> "...most of us..."?
>
> I've seen less than 10-15 posters in here wanting or threating to go
> back to XP.
> Hardly qualifies as "most of us".
>

"Most of us" is infinitely beyond the limits of this little newsgroup
server. This newsgroup absolutely doesn't qualify as "most of us"
either. Maybe you should read a few tech articles if you need to be
educated on who isn't moving to Vista.

And you're cross-posting to an XP group, so in here that IS "most of us".

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

Terry R. wrote:
> The date and time was 10/8/2008 7:26 AM, and on a whim, Frank pounded
> out on the keyboard:
>
>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:19:35 +1000, "Sunny" <wombathouse@yahoo.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you had read and understood the offer i.e.
>>>> You get two OS - Vista and WinXP CDs.
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that most of us don't want Vista, so we're effectively
>>> paying an extra $100 to get XP.
>>
>>
>> "...most of us..."?
>>
>> I've seen less than 10-15 posters in here wanting or threating to go
>> back to XP.
>> Hardly qualifies as "most of us".
>>
>
> "Most of us" is infinitely beyond the limits of this little newsgroup
> server. This newsgroup absolutely doesn't qualify as "most of us"
> either. Maybe you should read a few tech articles if you need to be
> educated on who isn't moving to Vista.

"...who isn't moving to Vista"?
Sorry, but that isn't the same as paying $100 to downgrade.

And you're cross-posting to an XP group, so in here that IS "most of us".

I answered a cross-post. I didn't originate it.

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

John John (MVP) wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Plato wrote:
>>
>>> the granter of sina wrote:
>>>
>>>> Microsoft is sending some very confusing signals about Windows Vista
>>>> - the
>>>> latest of which it issued via a statement on October 3.
>>>>
>>>> The Register reported on October 2 that Microsoft was going to
>>>> extend again
>>>> the date until which PC makers would be allowed to continue to offer
>>>> Windows
>>>> users "downgrade rights," enabling them to switch from Vista to XP
>>>> on new
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm also a bit confused. The other Sunday I was watching NASCAR with a
>>> neighbor and was considering bringing my laptop over after signing up
>>> with their special service, which required a high end pc/laptop, so I
>>> went to Dell and looked for laptops as it was about time for me to get
>>> in shape, and they all seemed to come with Vista, but for $100 _more_
>>> you could get a _downgrade_ to XP.
>>>
>>> Too weird for me. I closed the page.
>>
>>
>> "Downgrade" is the operative word.
>> But why would anyone pay $100 to "downgrade" anything?
>> Are there that many stupid people out there?
>
>
> You don't have to pay to downgrade, it's part of the Vista business
> license as it was part of the XP Professional license as it was part of
> the Windows 2000 Professional license as it is and was part of different
> Server versions. No one says you have to pay an OEM to do this for you
> but it is up to you to supply the previous version installation media
> and to make sure that drivers for the older version are available for
> the new hardware, so sometimes paying the OEM may be easier than doing
> it yourself or it may give the buyer a reassurance that the hardware
> will work with the older operating system and that it will be guaranteed
> and supported by the OEM.
>
> Why would business customers want downgrade rights? Perhaps if you were
> administering several hundred or several thousand workstations you might
> find that it is easier to maintain your machines if they all have the
> same operating system. Or maybe you have specialized applications or
> custom software that was designed to run on Windows XP but that doesn't
> work so well on the newer Windows version, changing the older or custom
> applications may not be a feasible option at this particular time so you
> might instead exercise your downgrade rights, for business customers
> this is not something that is as stupid as some might think. As I said
> above, this is nothing new, it's been around for a while and it is aimed
> at corporate clients, most people misunderstand the purpose of the
> downgrade rights but if they so chose to exercise it it is theirs to
> exercise if they buy business versions of the operating system.
>
> John
>
Then obviously those saying it will cost $100 to "downgrade" are confused.

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

Frank wrote:

> John John (MVP) wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Plato wrote:
>>>
>>>> the granter of sina wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft is sending some very confusing signals about Windows
>>>>> Vista - the
>>>>> latest of which it issued via a statement on October 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Register reported on October 2 that Microsoft was going to
>>>>> extend again
>>>>> the date until which PC makers would be allowed to continue to
>>>>> offer Windows
>>>>> users "downgrade rights," enabling them to switch from Vista to XP
>>>>> on new
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm also a bit confused. The other Sunday I was watching NASCAR with a
>>>> neighbor and was considering bringing my laptop over after signing up
>>>> with their special service, which required a high end pc/laptop, so I
>>>> went to Dell and looked for laptops as it was about time for me to get
>>>> in shape, and they all seemed to come with Vista, but for $100 _more_
>>>> you could get a _downgrade_ to XP.
>>>>
>>>> Too weird for me. I closed the page.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Downgrade" is the operative word.
>>> But why would anyone pay $100 to "downgrade" anything?
>>> Are there that many stupid people out there?
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't have to pay to downgrade, it's part of the Vista business
>> license as it was part of the XP Professional license as it was part
>> of the Windows 2000 Professional license as it is and was part of
>> different Server versions. No one says you have to pay an OEM to do
>> this for you but it is up to you to supply the previous version
>> installation media and to make sure that drivers for the older version
>> are available for the new hardware, so sometimes paying the OEM may be
>> easier than doing it yourself or it may give the buyer a reassurance
>> that the hardware will work with the older operating system and that
>> it will be guaranteed and supported by the OEM.
>>
>> Why would business customers want downgrade rights? Perhaps if you
>> were administering several hundred or several thousand workstations
>> you might find that it is easier to maintain your machines if they all
>> have the same operating system. Or maybe you have specialized
>> applications or custom software that was designed to run on Windows XP
>> but that doesn't work so well on the newer Windows version, changing
>> the older or custom applications may not be a feasible option at this
>> particular time so you might instead exercise your downgrade rights,
>> for business customers this is not something that is as stupid as some
>> might think. As I said above, this is nothing new, it's been around
>> for a while and it is aimed at corporate clients, most people
>> misunderstand the purpose of the downgrade rights but if they so chose
>> to exercise it it is theirs to exercise if they buy business versions
>> of the operating system.
>>
>> John
>>
> Then obviously those saying it will cost $100 to "downgrade" are confused.

It may cost more because you have to buy a business version when maybe a
home version might be all that you need. What the OEMs decide to charge
to do the downgrade is up to them, but not all OEMs charge for this
service. Some OEMs will supply an XP Pro restoration disk free of
charge with their Vista Business machines, if the buyer wants to use XP
he simply has to do a factory restore to the XP version, I know that
Lenovo does this with their ThinkPads. So you're right, it doesn't
necessarily cost $100 to downgrade your machine, people are saying that
because that is what one of the large major OEM charges to do it for
their customers, people can shop elsewhere and see what other OEMs have
to offer.

John

 

[xfile]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

> Why would business customers want downgrade rights? Perhaps if you were
> administering several hundred or several thousand workstations you might
> find that it is easier to maintain your machines if they all have the same
> operating system. Or maybe you have specialized applications or custom
> software that was designed to run on Windows XP but that doesn't work so
> well on the newer Windows version, changing the older or custom
> applications may not be a feasible option at this particular time so you
> might instead exercise your downgrade rights, for business customers this
> is not something that is as stupid as some might think. As I said above,
> this is nothing new, it's been around for a while and it is aimed at
> corporate clients, most people misunderstand the purpose of the downgrade
> rights but if they so chose to exercise it it is theirs to exercise if
> they buy business versions of the operating system.

I agree with you mostly except the following:

The magnitude has never been this large though it is known that corporate
customers are, rightfully, cautious. However, corporate customers are
normally signed in with volume licenses and if one pays attentions to the
offer from brand name system providers, one will also know that it's not
just corporate customers but also a larger number of SMBs (small and medium
business) are doing so.

Apart from the "standard" costs of migrating to a new operating system,
Vista also requires a large amount of "retraining" cost including
interruption of work and user dissatisfaction, and we are still dealing with
some primitive issues (e.g. file copying, basic networking issues, etc.)
after Windows has been introduced, say, 20+ years?

On one hand, we have increased cost without reducing any of previous
standard migration costs such as some of you already mentioned, and on the
other hand, what are "tangible" benefits (key word: tangible, not
sensational or feeling safer)?

Also with today's global competitive environment, I seriously doubt any
proper trained decision maker will give it a go.

The newer version will have to deliver one critical business element
regardless of its technical hype and that is, If it cannot present
*tangible* benefits, it needs to reduce deployment/migration cost, or it
will face the same if not a worse situation.


"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:gcii7i$gn9$1@aioe.org...
> Frank wrote:
>
>> Plato wrote:
>>
>>> the granter of sina wrote:
>>>
>>>> Microsoft is sending some very confusing signals about Windows Vista -
>>>> the
>>>> latest of which it issued via a statement on October 3.
>>>>
>>>> The Register reported on October 2 that Microsoft was going to extend
>>>> again
>>>> the date until which PC makers would be allowed to continue to offer
>>>> Windows
>>>> users "downgrade rights," enabling them to switch from Vista to XP on
>>>> new
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm also a bit confused. The other Sunday I was watching NASCAR with a
>>> neighbor and was considering bringing my laptop over after signing up
>>> with their special service, which required a high end pc/laptop, so I
>>> went to Dell and looked for laptops as it was about time for me to get
>>> in shape, and they all seemed to come with Vista, but for $100 _more_
>>> you could get a _downgrade_ to XP.
>>>
>>> Too weird for me. I closed the page.
>>
>> "Downgrade" is the operative word.
>> But why would anyone pay $100 to "downgrade" anything?
>> Are there that many stupid people out there?
>
> You don't have to pay to downgrade, it's part of the Vista business
> license as it was part of the XP Professional license as it was part of
> the Windows 2000 Professional license as it is and was part of different
> Server versions. No one says you have to pay an OEM to do this for you
> but it is up to you to supply the previous version installation media and
> to make sure that drivers for the older version are available for the new
> hardware, so sometimes paying the OEM may be easier than doing it yourself
> or it may give the buyer a reassurance that the hardware will work with
> the older operating system and that it will be guaranteed and supported by
> the OEM.
>
> Why would business customers want downgrade rights? Perhaps if you were
> administering several hundred or several thousand workstations you might
> find that it is easier to maintain your machines if they all have the same
> operating system. Or maybe you have specialized applications or custom
> software that was designed to run on Windows XP but that doesn't work so
> well on the newer Windows version, changing the older or custom
> applications may not be a feasible option at this particular time so you
> might instead exercise your downgrade rights, for business customers this
> is not something that is as stupid as some might think. As I said above,
> this is nothing new, it's been around for a while and it is aimed at
> corporate clients, most people misunderstand the purpose of the downgrade
> rights but if they so chose to exercise it it is theirs to exercise if
> they buy business versions of the operating system.
>
> John
>

 

[Terry R.]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

The date and time was 10/8/2008 8:30 AM, and on a whim, Frank pounded
out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was 10/8/2008 7:26 AM, and on a whim, Frank pounded
>> out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:19:35 +1000, "Sunny" <wombathouse@yahoo.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you had read and understood the offer i.e.
>>>>> You get two OS - Vista and WinXP CDs.
>>>>
>>>> The point is that most of us don't want Vista, so we're effectively
>>>> paying an extra $100 to get XP.
>>>
>>> "...most of us..."?
>>>
>>> I've seen less than 10-15 posters in here wanting or threating to go
>>> back to XP.
>>> Hardly qualifies as "most of us".
>>>
>> "Most of us" is infinitely beyond the limits of this little newsgroup
>> server. This newsgroup absolutely doesn't qualify as "most of us"
>> either. Maybe you should read a few tech articles if you need to be
>> educated on who isn't moving to Vista.
>
> "...who isn't moving to Vista"?
> Sorry, but that isn't the same as paying $100 to downgrade.
>

You're right. Because MS still counts those as Vista users even though
they've moved back to XP. That "most of us" keeps growing smaller.

This was my statement, not yours:
> And you're cross-posting to an XP group, so in here that IS "most of us".
>
> I answered a cross-post. I didn't originate it.

Don't talk about "most of us (Vista users)" in an XP group, because the
"most of us" here are XP.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[+Bob+]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:35:45 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
wrote:

>You're right. Because MS still counts those as Vista users even though
>they've moved back to XP. That "most of us" keeps growing smaller.
>
>This was my statement, not yours:
>> And you're cross-posting to an XP group, so in here that IS "most of us".
>>
>> I answered a cross-post. I didn't originate it.
>
>Don't talk about "most of us (Vista users)" in an XP group, because the
>"most of us" here are XP.

Crossposting point noted and use of XP jealously regarded.

Let me correct my previous statement: Most Vista users or potential
Vista users find it a buggy OS with a multitude of problems and a with
a lack of any discernable improvements that cause it to be much less
desirable than XP.

As for the argument of the cost of downgrade rights, that's all
semantics. No one ordering and "XP downgrade" is doing it because they
want to use XP now and upgrade to Vista later. They want XP, period.
The manufacturers know this, but the will not let you buy a machine
with XP only: they will only sell you a machine with Vista that's been
"downgraded". They won't give me a credit for telling them to toss
Vista in the trash bin where it belongs.

So, yes, you have downgrade rights, but you don't have a legal copy of
XP to install on your new machine (unless you have other licensing
arrangements). Have a foolish usenet argument about the semantics if
you want, but getting a machine with the OS I want (XP) on it from
Dell or other major manufacturers costs me $100 more - if they will
even provide it.

 

[Not Even Me]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

"xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ebRpGZWKJHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Why would business customers want downgrade rights? Perhaps if you were
>> administering several hundred or several thousand workstations you might
>> find that it is easier to maintain your machines if they all have the
>> same operating system. Or maybe you have specialized applications or
>> custom software that was designed to run on Windows XP but that doesn't
>> work so well on the newer Windows version, changing the older or custom
>> applications may not be a feasible option at this particular time so you
>> might instead exercise your downgrade rights, for business customers this
>> is not something that is as stupid as some might think. As I said above,
>> this is nothing new, it's been around for a while and it is aimed at
>> corporate clients, most people misunderstand the purpose of the downgrade
>> rights but if they so chose to exercise it it is theirs to exercise if
>> they buy business versions of the operating system.
>
> I agree with you mostly except the following:
>
> The magnitude has never been this large though it is known that corporate
> customers are, rightfully, cautious. However, corporate customers are
> normally signed in with volume licenses and if one pays attentions to the
> offer from brand name system providers, one will also know that it's not
> just corporate customers but also a larger number of SMBs (small and
> medium business) are doing so.
>
> Apart from the "standard" costs of migrating to a new operating system,
> Vista also requires a large amount of "retraining" cost including
> interruption of work and user dissatisfaction, and we are still dealing
> with some primitive issues (e.g. file copying, basic networking issues,
> etc.) after Windows has been introduced, say, 20+ years?
>
> On one hand, we have increased cost without reducing any of previous
> standard migration costs such as some of you already mentioned, and on the
> other hand, what are "tangible" benefits (key word: tangible, not
> sensational or feeling safer)?
>
> Also with today's global competitive environment, I seriously doubt any
> proper trained decision maker will give it a go.
>
> The newer version will have to deliver one critical business element
> regardless of its technical hype and that is, If it cannot present
> *tangible* benefits, it needs to reduce deployment/migration cost, or it
> will face the same if not a worse situation.

Ditto!
And if the manufacturer of the goods you sell says...use Vista at your own
risk, we won't ptovide support for problems with out software on Vista
machines...
you stick with XP. Not just because it is better...but because you need to
for legitimate business purposes.

 

[nemo]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

On Oct 8, 11:05 am, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Frank wrote:
> > Plato wrote:
>
> >> the granter of sina wrote:
>
> >>> Microsoft is sending some very confusing signals about Windows Vista
> >>> - the
> >>> latest of which it issued via a statement on October 3.
>
> >>> The Register reported on October 2 that Microsoft was going to extend
> >>> again
> >>> the date until which PC makers would be allowed to continue to offer
> >>> Windows
> >>> users "downgrade rights," enabling them to switch from Vista to XP on
> >>> new
>
> >> I'm also a bit confused. The other Sunday I was watching NASCAR with a
> >> neighbor and was considering bringing my laptop over after signing up
> >> with their special service, which required a high end pc/laptop, so I
> >> went to Dell and looked for laptops as it was about time for me to get
> >> in shape, and they all seemed to come with Vista, but for $100 _more_
> >> you could get a _downgrade_ to XP.
>
> >> Too weird for me. I closed the page.
>
> > "Downgrade" is the operative word.
> > But why would anyone pay $100 to "downgrade" anything?
> > Are there that many stupid people out there?
>
> You don't have to pay to downgrade, it's part of the Vista business
> license as it was part of the XP Professional license as it was part of
> the Windows 2000 Professional license as it is and was part of different
> Server versions.  

So if the laptop I bought came with a Home version, what are my
options? Unfortunately most PCs sold in the US, and certainly nearly
*ALL* laptops, come with a choice of exactly one version of the OS.
Is there a path to put XP on my machine? I am using it for design
work and a fair percentage of the software I run is very cranky under
Vista or some of it won't even install. So I may have to shell out
thousands of dollars more to get new versions of applications... if
they are even available for Vista.

 

[Bob I]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months



nemo wrote:

> On Oct 8, 11:05 am, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>Frank wrote:
>>
>>>Plato wrote:
>>
>>>>the granter of sina wrote:
>>
>>>>>Microsoft is sending some very confusing signals about Windows Vista
>>>>>- the
>>>>>latest of which it issued via a statement on October 3.
>>
>>>>>The Register reported on October 2 that Microsoft was going to extend
>>>>>again
>>>>>the date until which PC makers would be allowed to continue to offer
>>>>>Windows
>>>>>users "downgrade rights," enabling them to switch from Vista to XP on
>>>>>new
>>
>>>>I'm also a bit confused. The other Sunday I was watching NASCAR with a
>>>>neighbor and was considering bringing my laptop over after signing up
>>>>with their special service, which required a high end pc/laptop, so I
>>>>went to Dell and looked for laptops as it was about time for me to get
>>>>in shape, and they all seemed to come with Vista, but for $100 _more_
>>>>you could get a _downgrade_ to XP.
>>
>>>>Too weird for me. I closed the page.
>>
>>>"Downgrade" is the operative word.
>>>But why would anyone pay $100 to "downgrade" anything?
>>>Are there that many stupid people out there?
>>
>>You don't have to pay to downgrade, it's part of the Vista business
>>license as it was part of the XP Professional license as it was part of
>>the Windows 2000 Professional license as it is and was part of different
>>Server versions.
>
>
> So if the laptop I bought came with a Home version, what are my
> options? Unfortunately most PCs sold in the US, and certainly nearly
> *ALL* laptops, come with a choice of exactly one version of the OS.
> Is there a path to put XP on my machine? I am using it for design
> work and a fair percentage of the software I run is very cranky under
> Vista or some of it won't even install. So I may have to shell out
> thousands of dollars more to get new versions of applications... if
> they are even available for Vista.

The only issue I see is that Microsoft didn't replace XP soon enough. Up
until Vista, they were releasing operating systems every 2-3 years. XP
just has a lot more history behind it, and people tend to have very
short memories.

 

[nemo]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

On Oct 9, 8:43 am, Bob I <bire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> nemo wrote:
>
> > So if the laptop I bought came with a Home version, what are my
> > options?  Unfortunately most PCs sold in the US, and certainly nearly
> > *ALL* laptops, come with a choice of exactly one version of the OS.
> > Is there a path to put XP on my machine?  I am using it for design
> > work and a fair percentage of the software I run is very cranky under
> > Vista or some of it won't even install.  So I may have to shell out
> > thousands of dollars more to get new versions of applications... if
> > they are even available for Vista.
>
> The only issue I see is that Microsoft didn't replace XP soon enough. Up
>   until Vista, they were releasing operating systems every 2-3 years. XP
> just has a lot more history behind it, and people tend to have very
> short memories.

What are you talking about? Were you replying to someone else? Until
now I have been running Win2k, so don't say my memory is short. I
didn't convert to XP because it offered little (common theme with MS
updates) and added hassles (another common theme).

Do I misunderstand your point?

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

nemo wrote:

> On Oct 8, 11:05 am, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>Frank wrote:
>>
>>>Plato wrote:
>>
>>>>the granter of sina wrote:
>>
>>>>>Microsoft is sending some very confusing signals about Windows Vista
>>>>>- the
>>>>>latest of which it issued via a statement on October 3.
>>
>>>>>The Register reported on October 2 that Microsoft was going to extend
>>>>>again
>>>>>the date until which PC makers would be allowed to continue to offer
>>>>>Windows
>>>>>users "downgrade rights," enabling them to switch from Vista to XP on
>>>>>new
>>
>>>>I'm also a bit confused. The other Sunday I was watching NASCAR with a
>>>>neighbor and was considering bringing my laptop over after signing up
>>>>with their special service, which required a high end pc/laptop, so I
>>>>went to Dell and looked for laptops as it was about time for me to get
>>>>in shape, and they all seemed to come with Vista, but for $100 _more_
>>>>you could get a _downgrade_ to XP.
>>
>>>>Too weird for me. I closed the page.
>>
>>>"Downgrade" is the operative word.
>>>But why would anyone pay $100 to "downgrade" anything?
>>>Are there that many stupid people out there?
>>
>>You don't have to pay to downgrade, it's part of the Vista business
>>license as it was part of the XP Professional license as it was part of
>>the Windows 2000 Professional license as it is and was part of different
>>Server versions.
>
>
> So if the laptop I bought came with a Home version, what are my
> options?

Downgrade rights are not extended to the Home versions, you should ask
the laptop vendor if there are XP drivers for the machine, if they
support installing XP on the machine you will then have to find an XP
copy out there somewhere.


> Unfortunately most PCs sold in the US, and certainly nearly
> *ALL* laptops, come with a choice of exactly one version of the OS.

You're assertion that *ALL* laptops come with only a choice of Vista
Home is certainly at odds with my experience. Laptops are more
frequently purchased for business or work purposes and the the frequent
need to join them to domains has always and still makes business
versions of Windows the preferred operating system for these machines.
If you can't find laptops being offered with Vista Business you aren't
looking too hard or you are looking at the wrong places!

John

 

[xfile]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

> XP just has a lot more history behind it, and people tend to have very
> short memories.

I for one don't have short memory, but I tend to think that going through
the same routine for every few years is rather foolish.

It means we haven't learned anything from the past and no "progress".

The best talents prevent mistakes, the middle ones fix it once for all, and
the worst repeats with pride.

"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:exsuaygKJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
> nemo wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 11:05 am, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>>Plato wrote:
>>>
>>>>>the granter of sina wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Microsoft is sending some very confusing signals about Windows Vista
>>>>>>- the
>>>>>>latest of which it issued via a statement on October 3.
>>>
>>>>>>The Register reported on October 2 that Microsoft was going to extend
>>>>>>again
>>>>>>the date until which PC makers would be allowed to continue to offer
>>>>>>Windows
>>>>>>users "downgrade rights," enabling them to switch from Vista to XP on
>>>>>>new
>>>
>>>>>I'm also a bit confused. The other Sunday I was watching NASCAR with a
>>>>>neighbor and was considering bringing my laptop over after signing up
>>>>>with their special service, which required a high end pc/laptop, so I
>>>>>went to Dell and looked for laptops as it was about time for me to get
>>>>>in shape, and they all seemed to come with Vista, but for $100 _more_
>>>>>you could get a _downgrade_ to XP.
>>>
>>>>>Too weird for me. I closed the page.
>>>
>>>>"Downgrade" is the operative word.
>>>>But why would anyone pay $100 to "downgrade" anything?
>>>>Are there that many stupid people out there?
>>>
>>>You don't have to pay to downgrade, it's part of the Vista business
>>>license as it was part of the XP Professional license as it was part of
>>>the Windows 2000 Professional license as it is and was part of different
>>>Server versions.
>>
>>
>> So if the laptop I bought came with a Home version, what are my
>> options? Unfortunately most PCs sold in the US, and certainly nearly
>> *ALL* laptops, come with a choice of exactly one version of the OS.
>> Is there a path to put XP on my machine? I am using it for design
>> work and a fair percentage of the software I run is very cranky under
>> Vista or some of it won't even install. So I may have to shell out
>> thousands of dollars more to get new versions of applications... if
>> they are even available for Vista.
>
> The only issue I see is that Microsoft didn't replace XP soon enough. Up
> until Vista, they were releasing operating systems every 2-3 years. XP
> just has a lot more history behind it, and people tend to have very short
> memories.
>

 

[Bob I]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months



xfile wrote:

>>XP just has a lot more history behind it, and people tend to have very
>>short memories.
>
>
> I for one don't have short memory, but I tend to think that going through
> the same routine for every few years is rather foolish.
>
> It means we haven't learned anything from the past and no "progress".
>
> The best talents prevent mistakes, the middle ones fix it once for all, and
> the worst repeats with pride.
>


Sorry, but stuff gets replaced with new models all the time. You can't
have missed that simple fact of life.

 

[Timford]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months


I'm not sure weather I agree with this or not. Vista is a much better
operating system in my opinion, depending on the machine your running, I
have a netbook (mini-note) which was pre installed with vista business
and it just couldn't handle it well so now I dual boot with vista and XP
media center edition 2005 SP3 [/mouthful]. It's good for certain people
but I just don't think computers should be built now if they can't
handle vista.


--
Timford

 

[xfile]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

> Sorry, but stuff gets replaced with new models all the time. You can't
> have missed that simple fact of life.

Meaning it has to be broken when it gets replaced with new models? Meaning
what we have learned from mistakes cannot apply to the new models?

Which also means you are fine with every new car you purchased with same oil
leak problem as long as its a new model with new paint?



"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OAjr4llKJHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
> xfile wrote:
>
>>>XP just has a lot more history behind it, and people tend to have very
>>>short memories.
>>
>>
>> I for one don't have short memory, but I tend to think that going through
>> the same routine for every few years is rather foolish.
>>
>> It means we haven't learned anything from the past and no "progress".
>>
>> The best talents prevent mistakes, the middle ones fix it once for all,
>> and the worst repeats with pride.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, but stuff gets replaced with new models all the time. You can't
> have missed that simple fact of life.
>

 

[+Bob+]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:39:01 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:

>Meaning it has to be broken when it gets replaced with new models? Meaning
>what we have learned from mistakes cannot apply to the new models?
>
>Which also means you are fine with every new car you purchased with same oil
>leak problem as long as its a new model with new paint?

Exactly. The problem with MS is that instead of REFINING the OS
through continuous version upgrades, the REPLACE the OS with millions
of lines of completely new code. The reasons for all the bugs and
incompatibility are obvious. IN the days of yore, mid range
manufacturers revised OS's time and time again with new releases - but
they were refinements, not wholesale replacements.

MS continues to give us "new" OS's that have little practical
advantage over previous OS's. The only reason they sell at all is
because they strong arm manufacturers into selling only the latest and
then eliminate support for older versions.

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

+Bob+ wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:39:01 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Meaning it has to be broken when it gets replaced with new models? Meaning
>>what we have learned from mistakes cannot apply to the new models?
>>
>>Which also means you are fine with every new car you purchased with same oil
>>leak problem as long as its a new model with new paint?
>
>
> Exactly. The problem with MS is that instead of REFINING the OS
> through continuous version upgrades, the REPLACE the OS with millions
> of lines of completely new code. The reasons for all the bugs and
> incompatibility are obvious. IN the days of yore, mid range
> manufacturers revised OS's time and time again with new releases - but
> they were refinements, not wholesale replacements.
>
> MS continues to give us "new" OS's that have little practical
> advantage over previous OS's. The only reason they sell at all is
> because they strong arm manufacturers into selling only the latest and
> then eliminate support for older versions.


"Bullshit bob" rides again!

 

[Bob I]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months



xfile wrote:

>>Sorry, but stuff gets replaced with new models all the time. You can't
>>have missed that simple fact of life.
>
>
> Meaning it has to be broken when it gets replaced with new models? Meaning
> what we have learned from mistakes cannot apply to the new models?
>
> Which also means you are fine with every new car you purchased with same oil
> leak problem as long as its a new model with new paint?
>

Huh? New models always have different features. Broken verses how you
think it should work? And things are improved from one to the next. On
the otherhand, there are some inherent features that will carry over
from one model to the next. Oil leak? Well the vertical split motorcycle
engine case comes to mind.

 

[xfile]

Re: Microsoft extends XP downgrade rights date by six months

Hi,

> Huh? New models always have different features.

Right and that's good. Anything I said suggested you that I am against it?

>Broken verses how you think it should work?

No, I am a little bit of mature and knowledgeable than you suspected.
Broken as it doesn't work as expected and please do not tell me that you
haven't found any from this newsgroup (even you might be one of those
recognize this is the ONLY support portal in the world) and that MS issued
SP1 is for fun.

>And things are improved from one to the next.

In theory, it is but we are discussing actual performance results documented
throughout the past 20+ years.

>On the otherhand, there are some inherent features that will carry over
>from one model to the next.

Right and that's good. Anything I said suggested you that I am against it?

>Oil leak? Well the vertical split motorcycle engine case comes to mind.

Sorry, it could be my reading comprehension problem but I don't know what
are you talking about.



"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u5bx$mtKJHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
> xfile wrote:
>
>>>Sorry, but stuff gets replaced with new models all the time. You can't
>>>have missed that simple fact of life.
>>
>>
>> Meaning it has to be broken when it gets replaced with new models?
>> Meaning what we have learned from mistakes cannot apply to the new
>> models?
>>
>> Which also means you are fine with every new car you purchased with same
>> oil leak problem as long as its a new model with new paint?
>>
>
> Huh? New models always have different features. Broken verses how you
> think it should work? And things are improved from one to the next. On the
> otherhand, there are some inherent features that will carry over from one
> model to the next. Oil leak? Well the vertical split motorcycle engine
> case comes to mind.
>