Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

One Third of New PCs Downgraded To XP?

CmdrTaco posted about 6 years ago | from the if-only-they-could-just-be-not-bought dept.

Windows 617

CWmike writes "More than one in every three new PCs is downgraded from Windows Vista to Windows XP, either at the factory or by the buyer, said performance and metrics researcher Devil Mountain Software, which operates a community-based testing network. 'The 35% is only an estimate, but it shows a trend within our own user base,' Craig Barth, the company's CTO, said. 'People are taking advantage of Vista's downgrade rights.' Last year, Devil Mountain benchmarked Vista and XP performance using other performance-testing tools and concluded that XP was much faster. Barth said things haven't changed since then. 'Everything I've seen clearly shows me that Vista is an OS that should never have left the barn.'"

cancel ×

617 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not exactly surprised... (5, Insightful)

smitingpurpleemu (951712) | about 6 years ago | (#24651279)

Ordinary users expect stuff to work easily. Vista has an awful reputation in this regard, and it chews up more processing power/RAM and is slower than XP.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (5, Interesting)

McFortner (881162) | about 6 years ago | (#24651343)

Not even a first. Anybody remember Windows ME? Redmond is forgetting their history apparently....

Re:Not exactly surprised... (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about 6 years ago | (#24651373)

that's because marketing keeps changing history to suit their needs.

It is one thing about linux I like. you can see the progression of change in the software. everyone else tries to hide what horrible things and stupid ideas they tried in the past. In 6 years time people are going to go there was Vista?

Re:Not exactly surprised... (4, Funny)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 6 years ago | (#24651477)

Not even a first. Anybody remember Windows ME? Redmond is forgetting their history apparently....

Nonsense. Redmond was always at war with East Asia.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (5, Interesting)

smashin234 (555465) | about 6 years ago | (#24651351)

A larger OS will of course use more resources. This does not surprise me in the least anyway since I am sure close to 1/3 of the people who buy new PC's get 1GB of ram or even less nowadays....and with less then 1gb and even 2gb of ram vista will bog down the system when running anything but word processing/email.

I think MS screwed up by launching vista so soon before the hardware was really ready for it. Many people may say it does nothing to improve computing, but I just think its a little before its time... (probably a first for MS anyway.)

Re:Not exactly surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651467)

I think you're wrong about the amount of RAM that is in PCs shipping recently. A lot of them come with 3 or more GB. It's one of the few remaining things that PC manufacturers can use to differentiate their offerings from the rest of the market.

I think you're right about MS screwing up by launching Vista.

Move over Moore. Gates' Law ... Updated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651699)

No-one will ever need more than 640G.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 6 years ago | (#24651493)

They should have just slapped the Aero GUI on XP and called it Vista. It'd Just Work(tm) and it would still consume much less resources than Vista does now. Vista didn't even deliver most of the stuff like WinFS that was supposed to make the upgrade headache worthwhile. It did, however, include the latest and most virulent DRM as well as other non-critical crap.

Again, Microsoft, just put Aero on Windows XP as service pack 4, and then you can pretend that your customers really, really do prefer Vista over XP.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#24651601)

I think MS screwed up by launching vista so soon before the hardware was really ready for it.

It's a canard to say that the problem with Vista is that "the hardware is not ready for it".

If Saab made a car that could only run on some super high-test gasoline that is not sold in gas stations, would you say that "the gasoline was not ready for it" or that "it was a stupid design and poor business decision to release it"?

Re:Not exactly surprised... (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#24651733)

It's a canard to say that the problem with Vista is that "the hardware is not ready for it"

Isn't that kind of a lot for a duck to say?

Re:Not exactly surprised... (5, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | about 6 years ago | (#24651875)

It's a canard to say that the problem with Vista is that "the hardware is not ready for it".

If Saab made a car that could only run on some super high-test gasoline that is not sold in gas stations, would you say that "the gasoline was not ready for it" or that "it was a stupid design and poor business decision to release it"?

If, for instance, Saab released a new hybrid car which ran on hydrogen, and there was no infrastructure in place to supply that. I would not call the car stupid design because there was no infrastructure in place. I could, if I believed (or in foresight knew) that someday there would be, call it "Ahead of it's time" or "We just weren't ready for it".

However, that has nothing to do with Vista, because it was stupid design. And while the hardware still isn't ready for it, even if it were, it'd be a stupid design.

I don't know if the people making decisions on Vista just weren't all on the same page or what, but Vista is a pile of poorly planned half implemented aborted attempts at doing what the marketers over sold it as being capable of doing.

That has nothing to do with hardware other than the fact that having a beefier machine might, might, mitigate the issues the same way an elephant gun might do as a fly swatter.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (5, Insightful)

slig (1233832) | about 6 years ago | (#24651625)

Throwing more hardware at a problem is far from an elegant solution. For all the bloat, what exactly does it accomplish which warrants such a massive hardware investment?

Re:Not exactly surprised... (1)

InlawBiker (1124825) | about 6 years ago | (#24651629)

I'd like to try Vista so I can judge for myself but I don't have the chance. The last 3 work computers I've been issued all have Vista stickers on them, but I.T. has pre-loaded an XP-Pro image onto the machines. And I'm sure not buying Vista for my home machine(s) when there's no need to. I'm beginning to wonder if I'll *ever* use Vista.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (1)

UltraAyla (828879) | about 6 years ago | (#24651645)

I entirely agree. What I tell people when they ask about Vista is to not upgrade old PCs to it, but to take it if it ships with a new PC. I have enjoyed the experience of using Vista, but I'm NOT going to upgrade my desktop to it because XP meets all of my needs and is much speedier on older hardware.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (1)

Z34107 (925136) | about 6 years ago | (#24651707)

I hate to say this (well, not really) but you're wrong about Vista's memory requirements.

I built my gaming rig last summer with 2 GB of RAM. Ran the Crysis demo at low/medium settings in DirectX 10, but I hear the actual game is a lot more optimized. Of course, Word and any other component of Office 2007 load nigh instantly.

I work for the IT department full-time at the college I attend, and we cobbled together a "tech bench" machine we use for offline viruscans and backups. It has integrated intel graphics, a 2.8GHz Pentium 4, and a gig of RAM (we had to scrounge a bit to get it up from 768.) Because the school has a few hundred OEM licenses floating around (they use predominately XP and have a site license for Vista anyways) we threw Vista on there - it actually boots faster. It's not like we've run benchmarks, but it runs about the same as it did in XP - tolerably slow, but no worse since the OS upgrade.

Not that it matters anyway - PC Gamer does a low/medium/high end build spec and cost estimate in each issue, and until a few months ago, their "dream system" spec only had 2 GB of RAM. (Checking this month's issue, they bumped it up to 4 GB.) For $1000, Circuit City will sell you a PC with 6 GB, a proper nVidia graphics card, and a 24" monitor.

A long, rambling tirade, sure, but most machines that'll run XP (Pentium 4, 1 GB of RAM, integrated graphics) will run Vista SP1 just fine. (Even I will admit Vista was unusable on any system prior to SP1; I was an early adopter.) And by "just fine" I mean the OS will probably take a few seconds longer to boot than XP, will be responsive to mouseclicks, and will run office applications and older games.

While I'm ranting, Aero (not Aero Glass) can actually be faster than the "classic" GUI because it's hardware accelerated. The more you know?!

Re:Not exactly surprised... (4, Interesting)

atari2600 (545988) | about 6 years ago | (#24651797)

I have quite a few friends who work at MS and most of them recommend running XP over vista when asked the obvious question. It isn't a question of hardware being ready for it as much as the OS isn't optimized enough. To add to vista woes, MS brought out tons of SKUS to further confuse customers.

A friendly conversation I had with an MS employee led to his asking me as to why people wouldn't want to upgrade to the latest supported OS and my response was a local school scenario where the budget for the school doesn't exactly accommodate upgrading 30 PCs to be vista capable. An underpaid overworked school employee in charge of the computing lab would probably find it easier to use XP till the OS is supported and switch to a distribution like Ubuntu OR do a smart thing and make the switch to a Linux distribution now and not worry about the change later.

Also in the above scenario it's easier to get the kids used to a new distribution and even keeps them from the mischief they can do in the windows world. My friend had no answer to this except that if the school made a strong case and appealed for aid, MS might donate hardware and I believed my buddy that MS might actually do it.

This is not a case of MS being ahead in the timeline (BeOS was ahead of its time, not Vista) - this is a case of getting a halfbaked product out (look up "code optimization"). I give you just one example as to why not using Vista is beneficial but I am sure there are tons others.

I am a gamer (and yet I do not care about DX10 for now) and I have stayed away from Vista. I do not want a larger OS - I want an OS optimized for gaming. I have a dual core processor with 3 GB of ram and I do not want an OS that can use it all just for the sake of using resources. I am surprised you have been modded interesting...

Re:Not exactly surprised... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651431)

vista makes baby Richard Dawkins cry. Please don't make him cry :'(

Re:Not exactly surprised... (1)

Born2bwire (977760) | about 6 years ago | (#24651549)

I highly doubt ordinary users really know the difference. I would imagine that most of this is due to business clients who want to keep using XP. I doubt that the people who are discerning and savvy enough to get a retailer to install XP over Vista are in large enough numbers to make much of an impact.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (5, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24651607)

I wouldn't go that far. Almost everyone has a friend who "knows computers." Many tech-oriented people hate Vista. When Joe Sixpack asks his tech friend for advice on purchasing a shiny new laptop, chances are the geek may say something akin to "Avoid Vista like the plague." And, if you've ever met Joe Sixpack while working a retail or support job, one-line quips from his geek friend are the infallible word of God.

Re:Not exactly surprised... (1)

Born2bwire (977760) | about 6 years ago | (#24651689)

At this point though, I would imagine that downgrading to Vista requires more effort than the average consumer is willing to exert. There was a recent article that compared the hoops that the author had to jump through to get XP after the retirement of XP. Lying, fighting with sales rep, and/or going through the business division of retailers is more than what most are willing to do. Granted though the posted article covers a time period prior to and including XP's retirement (I apologize in advance for reading the article).

Re:Not exactly surprised... (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#24651781)

When Joe Sixpack asks his tech friend for advice on purchasing a shiny new laptop, chances are the geek may say something akin to "Avoid Vista like the plague." And, if you've ever met Joe Sixpack while working a retail or support job, one-line quips from his geek friend are the infallible word of God.

Which makes me wonder if 1/3rd is too low. How many Joe Sixpacks got their shiny new laptop and wondered why it was so slow and thought that Vista's new user interface was too confusing (a complaint I've heard a lot from Joe Sixpacks upgrading their hardware)? How many went to their neighborhood geek, who promptly produced a questionable Windows XP disc and installed it on their shiny new vista laptop?

Wait until Mojave is released! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651713)

I hated Vista, but recently downloaded a beta of the new Windows Mojave. It's SO FREAKING GREAT!!! Best OS ever, maybe even!

Anyway, I remember all the idiots whining back in the day about how Windows 2000 was faster than XP. Kind of odd how those exact same idiots are claiming XP is the "really super very bestest OS evar, maybe even!"

Me too! (2, Informative)

Verteiron (224042) | about 6 years ago | (#24651281)

Every machine I've ordered from CDW has been preloaded with Windows XP, for which I thank them with my continued business. Vista has no place here.

Re:Me too! (4, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24651375)

Every machine I've ordered from CDW has been preloaded with Windows XP, for which I thank them with my continued business. Vista has no place here.

Agreed. Our office has ordered around 120 PCs in the past few months, all with XP preloaded. We wipe and reimage them before the end users see them, but the gesture is appreciated.

You mean Vista is slow!? (1)

porkmusket (954006) | about 6 years ago | (#24651285)

So... a number that's a guess is the only news-worthy item here? Sweet.

Downgraded? (3, Insightful)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | about 6 years ago | (#24651295)

That depends on your opinion/needs.

The Barn? (4, Interesting)

Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) | about 6 years ago | (#24651297)

Everything I've seen clearly shows me that Vista is an OS that should never have left the barn

Or better yet - BURN THE BARN!

On a serious note, it is sort of sad that Vista has performed so poorly. I mean, I really enjoy Linux, but on my gaming desktop I'd like to have the best OS for the job (with DX10 if it's used). As a gamer, the whole thing put a sour taste in my mouth. I guess I can say I'm happy with Linux, but a bit sad that nothing useful came out of Microsoft's work, except for being able to lord it over them.

Re:The Barn? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 6 years ago | (#24651529)

On a serious note, it is sort of sad that Vista has performed so poorly. I mean, I really enjoy Linux, but on my gaming desktop I'd like to have the best OS for the job (with DX10 if it's used). As a gamer, the whole thing put a sour taste in my mouth. I guess I can say I'm happy with Linux, but a bit sad that nothing useful came out of Microsoft's work, except for being able to lord it over them.

Yeah, it's really kinda sad. I mean, I don't use Windows at all, I don't play games that won't run in Linux (wine/cedega count). And while I have absolutely no love lost for Microsoft, I certainly think typical users deserve a good operating system regardless of who it comes from. I don't expect them to all switch to Linux, and it would be nice if the new operating system they will use was actually better than the old -- and in some ways it certainly is. Yet if everyone is reverting back because of problems, then the benefits don't matter. They're ending up with the same thing they had (plus service packs) in 2001.

At the same time though this is hardly unexpected. All the signs were there. Long before it was released it was obvious that if Windows NT was the IBM 7000 series, then Vista was its System 360. Plus a whole host of managerial issues that were evident beyond the Second System Syndrome. I feel bad for consumers, because once again Microsoft has failed them.

Re:The Barn? (3, Interesting)

Saint Stephen (19450) | about 6 years ago | (#24651569)

Try Server 2008 for gaming. It rocks :-)

Re:The Barn? (1)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | about 6 years ago | (#24651627)

I take it 2008 server was not crippled as 2003 server was for such a purpose?

Re:The Barn? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 6 years ago | (#24651763)

Er... Thanks for the advice, but as I said, I don't use windows any more.

Re:The Barn? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651585)

poo dfae corn poop shit poo afe corn poop shit poo afe corn poop eafd shit poo aefa corn poop shit poo corn poop afe shit poo corn poop afe shit dafae poo corn VISTA poop shit poo corn poop shit poo corn poop shit poo adfeafd corn poop shit poo corn poop shit poo corn dfae poop shit poo corn poop shit poo corn poop shit poo corn poop shit poo corn poop shit poo dfae corn poop shit poo corn poop shit poo dfaead corn poop shit poo corn poop shit poo corn poop shit dafe poo corn poop shit poo corn
akbalkjfelkfjaledfjeklfj eklfjlaekfjeaw ljdsl fjkwelfajlasd fawelfklasd fkjlealkf sdjklf eklfjeakfej f

Re:The Barn? (1)

nbert (785663) | about 6 years ago | (#24651593)

I mean, I really enjoy Linux, but on my gaming desktop I'd like to have the best OS for the job (with DX10 if it's used). As a gamer, the whole thing put a sour taste in my mouth.

Which proves again that the only reason to upgrade is DX10, so the target audience is pretty much limited to gamers. Another downer is that even the few DX10 games available don't look so much better compared to how they look on XP.

I wouldn't bother so much if it wasn't for all the friends coming to a LAN-party with Vista or my relatives who "just bought a laptop" with Vista pre-installed. The only thing I take comfort in is that I manage to configure more on the command line than they could ever reach in Vista's GUI. ipconfig and net are still there...

Performance wise I wouldn't be so surprised. On some new hardware it takes more than 20 seconds to start the control panel. I can't remember Win95 taking that long after a fresh restart. I wished that the audience would laugh more when some MS exec presented the benefits of this OS.

And the rest simply don't know how to. (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about 6 years ago | (#24651305)

90% of users are Joe Sixpacks, and still 35% of them jump through the hurdles to drop Vista. It's hard to imagine what Microsoft would need to do to fare worse than this.

Re:And the rest simply don't know how to. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651403)

90% of users are Joe Sixpacks, and still 35% of them jump through the hurdles to drop Vista. It's hard to imagine what Microsoft would need to do to fare worse than this.

Think again. For microsoft, it's a positive. They get someone to use for XP and pay for Vista, which is more expensive. It's a win for them.

Re:And the rest simply don't know how to. (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 6 years ago | (#24651545)

Only in the short term. In the long term, it entrenches the idea in peoples' minds that newer is not necessarily better when it's coming from Microsoft, which is not a mindset MS wants people to have. The debacle of Vista makes people more wary of new offerings from MS, and will harm them in the long run.

Re:And the rest simply don't know how to. (1)

spandex_panda (1168381) | about 6 years ago | (#24651415)

Yeah its pretty amazing really, nobody likes getting vista 'free' with their new computer but will pay out the nose for a mac with OSX (essentially just for the OS, although hardware is nice too) I personally buy without OS and stick old XPpro on a small partition for games... which don't get played much these days!

Re:And the rest simply don't know how to. (1)

louden obscure (766926) | about 6 years ago | (#24651591)

this joe six pack brought his gateway home a few months ago from best buy and installed debian. i had to fire up the included vista OS to grab a netinst ISO (i wanted to play in 64 bit land)and imgburn. it took me forever to find where one connects to a LAN, the wizards kept steering me down dead ends. and the DVD wizard apparently has never seen an ISO image let alone let me burn one. come to think of it, if it had come preloaded with xp i would have done the same thing.

Re:And the rest simply don't know how to. (1)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24651663)

this joe six pack brought his gateway home a few months ago from best buy and installed debian. i had to fire up the included vista OS to grab a netinst ISO (i wanted to play in 64 bit land)and imgburn. it took me forever to find where one connects to a LAN, the wizards kept steering me down dead ends. and the DVD wizard apparently has never seen an ISO image let alone let me burn one. come to think of it, if it had come preloaded with xp i would have done the same thing.

Methinks you need to review the local definition of "Joe Sixpack." Hint: People who know of the word "Debian" don't qualify.

s/Downgraded/Upgraded/g (4, Funny)

corsec67 (627446) | about 6 years ago | (#24651313)

Subject says it all.

XP isn't a downgrade from Vista (0, Redundant)

xs650 (741277) | about 6 years ago | (#24651341)

It's an upgrade

Mojave rings a bell? (1)

EvilIntelligence (1339913) | about 6 years ago | (#24651353)

Now you see why Microsoft tried that whole Mojave thing. They simply cannot get around the fact that Vista's is crap! They just simply won't admit it. Sooner or later they will have to swallow that pill, no matter how bad it tastes.

2001 Called (4, Informative)

nauseum_dot (1291664) | about 6 years ago | (#24651367)

and said that its OS is not going out without a fight!

Seriously, some variation of NT 5 is going to live for a long time, ReactOS [reactos.org] is proof positive of this.

Re:2001 Called (1)

comp21llc (895374) | about 6 years ago | (#24651479)

I think you're absolutely right... as far as our store is concerned, we advertise very publically that we have not and will not sell Vista... until they absolutely MAKE us. In fact, Missouri just had the back-to-school, tax free weekend and every Dell laptop we sold came with XP Pro. Yeah, extra money to the customer, but they were happy to pay an extra $150 to get it instead of Vista... maybe that's Microsoft's intention? Now, everyone who would spend $100 on XP Home is spending $100 on Vista Home AND an extra $150 upgrading to Business so they can 'downgrade' to XP Pro??

laptops (5, Interesting)

Cyrena (897852) | about 6 years ago | (#24651371)

It boggles the mind why anyone would want a low to mid range laptop to come with Vista preinstalled. And yet that's the only way to get them (reasonably).

And apparently Toshiba's only honouring the warranty now if none of the original bundled software has been removed. So a friend of mine ended up buying a cheap Toshiba, with the understanding that it functionally has no warranty, since he's immediately nuking Vista off of it.

Re:laptops (4, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24651429)

And apparently Toshiba's only honouring the warranty now if none of the original bundled software has been removed.

Dear [deity], what?!? So, even if you remove the crapware trial software, upgrade to an open driver, remove crap Windows services, etc, you're screwed?

If this is true, I think this point alone should be front page news.

Re:laptops (1)

Cyrena (897852) | about 6 years ago | (#24651451)

To be fair, I heard that second hand. Reliable source though.

Voiding the warranty not legal, is it? (2, Informative)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 6 years ago | (#24651491)

Somehow I suspect this might not be legal, since the warranty is ostensibly to cover the hardware. Wasn't there a /. article some months back about exactly this kind of issue, and how voiding the warranty on computer hardware for changing the software wasn't legal?

Cheers,

Re:Voiding the warranty not legal, is it? (1)

daoine_sidhe (619572) | about 6 years ago | (#24651819)

Depends on location; in some US states (Maine in particular), there is an "Implied Warranty" [maine.gov] which covers the hardware, regardless of the seller's warranty. Can be a PITA to actually get, however I've seen it work (specifically with Dell) three years into ownership on a one year warranty.

Re:Voiding the warranty not legal, is it? (2, Informative)

daoine_sidhe (619572) | about 6 years ago | (#24651849)

Sorry, link ----> Implied Warranty [maine.gov]

Re:laptops (1)

merreborn (853723) | about 6 years ago | (#24651513)

It boggles the mind why anyone would want a low to mid range laptop to come with Vista preinstalled. And yet that's the only way to get them (reasonably).

That's why I bought a macbook instead.

That, and having two HP laptops die within 12 months of their original purchase dates.

Re:laptops (1)

atari2600 (545988) | about 6 years ago | (#24651655)

It's not mind boggling (you doofus) if you consider most people (jesus fucking christ I am sick of this cliche) aka your average Joe doesn't know better. He/She's willing to pay a few hundred dollars for the latest laptop (which also happens to run Vista). Joe brings home his brand new shiny laptop with Vista+bloatware and wonders why he's cursed / why he sucks so much at computing.

I shake my head at Joe the same way I shake my head at people who pay 60$ for "gold plated" HDMI cables at Fry's but it's not my place to educate the 90% of the population. I can help my family, my friends and perhaps my neighbors but if people don't want to take 15-30mins to research before spending 100s of $ (or Euro, fuck the $) on undeserving hardware/software, they have it coming.

Re:laptops (3, Insightful)

Zymergy (803632) | about 6 years ago | (#24651789)

That is not enforceable...

1) Buy laptop with smallest and cheapest HDD possible.
2) Remove said HDD and image it.
3) Put in static bag in Original Laptop box and store it.
4) Purchase superior drive: Quiet and Large 5400RPM drive, or Superior and Fast 7200RPM drive, or Uber Everything SSD.
5) Apply your original image and install the drive.
6) Modify to your heart's content (PC Decrapifier , etc... or better yet... cleanly install XP (or OS of choice) with no Toshiba crapware or 'utility partition', etc..)

7) When something "breaks" Install original drive... Volia!

NOTE: Some users just use the same drive and keep an image of the original partition.... but imaging the wanted partition first and then reimaging the drive to the original one is too much of a pain.... (especially when the lap is dead and it better protects your data, pics, MP3s, etc..)
Just get a faster/better/more expensive superior HDD for your laptop and use that one.

Non-Compatible Laptops (5, Informative)

Renraku (518261) | about 6 years ago | (#24651385)

I bought my laptop with the intention of downgrading to Windows XP for increased stability and performance.

I was shocked, on the other hand, to find that there were no Windows XP drivers and that inserting the Windows XP CD and booting from it caused a BSOD before the installing starts. I have an HP Pavilion DV5-1002NR.

Do not purchase this laptop if you want to use Windows XP on it.

Re:Non-Compatible Laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651553)

I somehow failed to realize my laptop came with Vista when I bought it. I figured, what the heck, let's give it a try. After two days and endless explorer.exe crashes and other annoying issues I went online and downloaded XP. Luckily it turned out this model actually started life shipping with XP, so the Asus site had the XP drivers for download. Thank god for that.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a significant amount of people that just installed XP without bothering to figure out how to exchange their Vista license for an XP license. I believe Microsoft even charges for it, which probably means even more decide to do it the "wrong" way.

Re:Non-Compatible Laptops (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | about 6 years ago | (#24651807)

>I went online and downloaded XP.

I'll assume you downloaded it from say, a properly licensed MSDN source...

Re:Non-Compatible Laptops (4, Insightful)

sortia (1191847) | about 6 years ago | (#24651565)

You sure its not a sata driver problem? XP doesn't have sata drivers by default, try slipstreaming the sata drivers in to your XP disk.

Re:Non-Compatible Laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651739)

Most Laptops have custom drivers that MUST be present at OS installation. I ran into this problem on a Toshiba. I put a new drive in, thinking I'd do a clean installation. It barely installed, and most features would not work correctly without the manufacturer's custom stuff on the install CD.

Re:Non-Compatible Laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651899)

I had the same problem with another HP Pavillion laptop. I'd stay away from the entire range in future.

When I submitted this comment 'pavilion' was the CAPTCHA :)

how about the new version of Windows? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651391)

How come no one is talking about the new version of Windows called Mojave? It looks great, and has little utilities called gadgets ... I love Windows Mojave. I give it a "10"!

... er, what's that you say?

Downgrade? How? (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | about 6 years ago | (#24651421)

How is XP a downgrade?

I'm not a Vista hater. I actually like it better - it's UI for explorer (folders) is much better and I like that, unlike XP Home, UAC is in every release of Vista. I think the security is also better but not great yet -- services shouldn't run in administrator level but just be sandboxed to their own account.

But it is dog slow out of the box for many computers with integrated video chipsets (why some manufacturers don't set the Aero level appropriately for their models is beyond me). It takes up too many resources of low-end computers. And Microsoft has gotten way too version happy - 12 versions IIRC (counting 32 and 64 bit seperately). Microsoft is also squeezing wallets for truly inane things - I can't even get 64bit business upgrade easily when I have 32 bit business even though such an upgrade should be minimal costs (somehow my disc doesn't count for alternative media...).

Why is this? I don't know if it's peculiar to Vista, but it really pisses me off when the computer decides that it will restart in T - 10 minutes just for a security upgrade and there is nothing I can do about it -- which pretty much summarizes how Microsoft is treating the customer base in a lot of decisions.

No wonder Macs are starting to get popular on the high end and Linux is starting to get popular on the low end mini notebooks. XP sucks in a lot of regards security-wise, but at least it's small and fast and there were only 2 versions of it for a desktop and all the Apps work on it (Endicia Dazzle still isn't 100% Vista ready...)

Re:Downgrade? How? (2, Informative)

x2A (858210) | about 6 years ago | (#24651557)

"really pisses me off when the computer decides that it will restart in T - 10 minutes just for a security upgrade and there is nothing I can do about it"

Try shutdown /a (run shutdown /? to see all options available) from command prompt. Not tried on vista, but at least on 2003, that's the command to abort a system shutdown.

Excuse me (0, Redundant)

hierro (809232) | about 6 years ago | (#24651445)

Downgrade?

What if we just told them it was XP? (2, Funny)

DeLukas (621104) | about 6 years ago | (#24651453)

But! But! Microsoft did that thing, and people said Vista is great if we don't tell them it's Vista. Clearly the solution is to rebrand Vista as XP and in two months, like a magician, whip the cloth off and go "Aha! You've been using Vista all along!" There is no way a plan like that could fail!

Re:What if we just told them it was XP? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#24651679)

No offense, DeLukas, and I'm just as guilty of piling on when the talk is of Vista, but I'm thoroughly sick of this topic.

Can't we just stipulate that Vista was a poor business decision by Microsoft, was a failure as an OS release, and an abomination against nature and just never speak of it again?

I guess I know it doesn't work that way, but how I wish it was so.

it's all a bit silly, really (5, Insightful)

unfunk (804468) | about 6 years ago | (#24651457)

God, this feels horrible, but I have to defend Microsoft/Windows here a bit
Windows 98 was slower than Windows 95, running on the same hardware
Windows XP was slower than Windows 98, running on the same hardware
Windows Vista is slower than Windows XP, running on the same hardware.

Does anybody see a pattern here? Most people thought XP was rubbish for the first couple of years that it was out for, and now those same people are proclaiming it to be Microsoft's best OS to date.
Vista does a lot of things right, and improves on XP in many, many areas, it's just dogged by this idea that it's crap because you can't run it on your P3-800 and it won't work with your dot-matrix printer from 1977.

Ugh, that felt terrible, I need to go play with Ubuntu for a few hours now....

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (2, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24651509)

Does anybody see a pattern here? Most people thought XP was rubbish for the first couple of years that it was out for, and now those same people are proclaiming it to be Microsoft's best OS to date.

I think you can attribute that asstistic to the fact that Service Pack 2 was released.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#24651811)

those same people are proclaiming it to be Microsoft's best OS to date.

Do any of those people not work for one of the major computer magazines?

My latest computer came with Vista Ultimate pre-installed. It's got 4 gig RAM and a quad-core processor. I back-graded to XP Pro so I could get work done, but recently, I threw away a weekend giving Vista a second chance. Now I'm back on XP Pro and I've lost about 18 hours that I'll never get back again.

Before I give Vista another chance, Microsoft is going to have to arrange to have my dick sucked, preferably by one of their division heads.

But, since I still craved a great new OS after my failure with Vista, I am now very impressed with the latest Ubuntu Studio, and for the first time can actually do professional work on a Linux machine. I guess I owe Microsoft thanks for forcing me to give Linux another chance.

So now I can record and edit digital audio using Reaper on my XP machine and offload some of the rendering work to my Ubuntu machine using Reamote and ReaRoute over fast ethernet. Cool cool cool.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (3, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | about 6 years ago | (#24651531)

there is a trend, except XP and 98 were both improvements over their predecessors (real and perceived).

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#24651579)

I know the feeling. I installed Vista on my desktop 3 or 4 months ago. And after going through and turning off a lot of the annoying crap (UAC especially) and getting used to how they rearranged things, I'm actually quite pleased with it. There are a number of things here that they did get right. And as far as any performance issues go, they're so minimal that I haven't noticed them in daily use (Athlon X2 3800+). And yes, it does feel dirty saying that.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

x2A (858210) | about 6 years ago | (#24651581)

"Most people thought XP was rubbish for the first couple of years that it was out for"

And I stand by it! It's 2003 all the way (but perhaps if I had to pay its huge license fees I might change my mind). Okay it's not too dissimilar to xp, mostly like the fact that the default install is with [nearly] everything turned off, and you turn things on that you need/want, whereas xp seems to be the other way round, and will often end up with stuff running that you don't need to be just because you're not sure whether you can turn it off or not.

BULLshit (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | about 6 years ago | (#24651587)

ALL of those oses prior to Vista have brought something to the table that wasnt there before themselves.

vista, brings NOTHING, except drm. therefore people are not tolerating the slowness.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (4, Insightful)

duckInferno (1275100) | about 6 years ago | (#24651589)

Win 95 -> Win 98: Slightly slower, but also slightly less painful experience for the end user

Win 98 -> Win XP: A fair bit slower, but holy crap it doesn't crash any more!

Win XP -> Vista: Extreme slowdown and you don't get a lot out of it beyond viral DRM and all your shoddily-written software causing that annoying permissions box to pop up.

Every iteration of windows has been slightly slower but also better than the previous version... until Vista.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

thermian (1267986) | about 6 years ago | (#24651599)

Actually, if you have a machine of epic power, or at least, a high performance gaming system (like I just happen to have..) Vista runs really rather well.
Alas This means that Windows XP running on the same hardware is screamingly fast.

Therefore Vista loses again, or did in my case.

Still, it does run ok with sufficiently fast kit.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

Panaflex (13191) | about 6 years ago | (#24651617)

Well, I do cross development between Linux, (some) Mac, and Windows - and there is virtually zero demand (percentage wise) for Vista in the enterprise software space.

I think the things that drive people from Vista are:
1. Too many versions... you feel cheated getting the "low end" version on a nice new box.
2. Driver support - slowly getting fixed here, but for a long time things just "didn't work". Like my Printer, Scanner, and Monitor. Or, if they did work - they worked at a reduced functionality, were buggy, or didn't give the same "feel" as before.
3. It was late, it was rushed, all the reviews complained of problems people aren't going to pay to deal with.

The thing is this - people are happy because their setup WORKS. You sit down, you print. You write. You blog. You watch a movie. You game. It works.

Trust me - this counts for a lot. I've bought Mac for the past year for this very reason... it works. It may not be the best, or the fastest, or feature filled - but damn if I can't just sit down and do what I want, without pain.

I felt originally that Vista came with restrictions, lack of drivers, new interfaces, and DOESN"T JUST WORK. It was a total non-sale.

I feel that Vista has probably surpassed most of these issues in the past few months now - but the label sticks regardless.

Hell, Microsoft could probably slap a Vista 2009 sticker over the box and do a lot better.

Microsoft has always relied on Moore's law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651631)

They put out bloatware and expect that hardware improvements will make it run well.

One big problem: Moore's law has started to run out. CPU speeds have not been increasing like they used to, and Microsoft is not prepared yet to take true advantage of multiple cores. Something's going to have to change inside that company or the Vista debacle is going to keep repeating itself.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

bill_kress (99356) | about 6 years ago | (#24651669)

Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be.

The best thing an OS can do is launch an app for you and get the hell out of the way. Instead what we have is A company sustaining itself on injecting unnecessary features into the OS so that it can sell an "Upgrade" on those features... And when you can't sell the upgrade, force it!

I'm actually glad that Microsoft pulled so many drivers into the OS--before they pulled networking in, networking was a royal pain in the ass! Same with serial ports and video drivers... Ideally these should all be OS-independent libraries or modules...

I guess I'm just thinking that the OS itself SHOULD be getting smaller and faster, not the other way around. They should be optimizing loadtimes, reliability and simplicity--adding features and eye-candy is far less important.

I'm hoping they are learning that lesson now. My guess is that MS thought adding features was the only way to allow them to hike their prices again... Even if that was true, it's sounding like it didn't work. Perhaps the next release will be leaner and meaner.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

Zalgon 26 McGee (101431) | about 6 years ago | (#24651681)

But what about Windows ME?

Seems to me that MS alternates between functional and screwed up iterations of their OSes.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#24651711)

Vista does a lot of things right, and improves on XP in many, many areas...

By "many, many" do you mean "more than none"?

If so, I think you may be mistaken. The only people who think Vista is an improvement are the RAM manufacturers and other upgrade vendors.

I still have not met a single human being who willingly uses Vista professionally. After all, everyone who judges an OS based on hype has already converted to a Mac.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 6 years ago | (#24651775)

I had a similar thought, except it was: Of course lots of people are downgrading.

XP came out in 2001. The first time I saw it used in the workplace: 2004. We're not three years into Vista yet. It would be nice to have some kind of comparison numbers.

I mean, are more people downgrading from Vista than downgraded from XP in its early years? I think so. But we really have no basis of comparison, at least within the scope of this article.

Re:it's all a bit SLOW, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651785)

I agree with you in theory... The thing is, have you actually spent a significant chunk of time on Vista? Its dog-slow.

I bought a new computer a few months ago, and decided to put vista on it. On the performance rating vista gave it, it is ranked as off the chart, and described in their performance tool as "faster than the fastest computers at the time of Vista's release".

The problem is, its still SLOW to respond to EVERYTHING i do. Even simple directory browsing is painfully lagged.

I haven't benchmarked specifics, but if feels way slower to respond than XP and Ubuntu on my machine that is 6 years old.

I do a lot of work on that Vista system inside a Virtual Machine with Ubuntu on it, and that VM is WAY faster than the Vista gui (Yes, the virtual machine running inside Vista, is more responsive than Vista...)

Not quite valid comparisons (3, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | about 6 years ago | (#24651787)

"Windows 98 was slower than Windows 95, running on the same hardware
Windows XP was slower than Windows 98, running on the same hardware
Windows Vista is slower than Windows XP, running on the same hardware.
"

On a 486 with decent memory, it was hard to tell the difference in performance between 95 and 98. There's no mistaking the difference between XP and Vista on the same hardware, though. 1 gig of memory is fast for XP. On the same amount, Vista runs like a dog. Well, actually, Vista runs like a dog with any amount of memory.

As far as 98 to XP, Microsoft has an out there... 98 ran on the old DOS-based core, while XP has the much-more-capable but resource intensive NT core. So you're really comparing apples and oranges there. Vista has an NT based kernel, just like XP, so no excuse there.

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

Psx29 (538840) | about 6 years ago | (#24651829)

I wonder why you neglected to mention Windows ME?

Re:it's all a bit silly, really (1)

cr_nucleus (518205) | about 6 years ago | (#24651847)

Vista does a lot of things right, and improves on XP

Well, i've used windows since version 2 and vista is the first one that has ever confused me when trying to do any kind of configuration.

That said, it is however a bit difficult to go back to the XP interface after getting used to the visual nicities of vista.

Anyway, i'm now using ubuntu at work and osx at home so i don't really care, except while trying to help the windows users.

Funny thing is, the mac got from the very confusing os9 to the up to speed osx, but somehow windows did it backwards. Go figure.

Really Finally For-Real Time for Desktop Linux??? (1)

steve_thatguy (690298) | about 6 years ago | (#24651463)

You know even in spite of all the problems with Linux I think a combination of factors may push it to finally become a mainstream Desktop OS. I'm reluctant to make predictions because people have been saying it'll be the year for desktop linux since I started using Linux a little after 2000.

That said Vista's obviously tanked worse than anyone could've guessed. Even the non-computer savvy are reverting to an OS that Microsoft is no longer developing and is already trying to cut support for entirely.

I know from my friends that's pushed a lot of people towards Mac OS, and it would seem that would be the natural way for things to go and it could be that Macs finally take over as at least an equal share desktop OS, if not become the dominant desktop. But then now Apple's having stock problems and a ton of concerns over Jobs' health and whether or not Apple can continue successfully should Steve Jobs have to retire.

Businesses are going to take the potential for Apple to suddenly go drastically downhill way more seriously than average consumers, which may push businesses toward Linux. Business workstations obviously are a major if not the biggest factor in desktop adoption for an OS.

This is obviously really hypothetical, but it seems like this combination of factors along with the increasing prominence of Linux (especially with the marketing work of Ubuntu/Canonical) are making this a great opening for Linux to move into an area where it has a signficiant enough marketshare that application developers such as Adobe will have to start supporting it as well as they support Windows/Mac. I'm not gonna say it outright because it'll take more than a year I think for this to become fully clear, and it could easily be taken away by Apple if they make the right moves, or if they clear up any uncertainties and concerns businesses might have about their future, but this is the first time Linux has an opening to take a huge chunk of desktop market share because it has non-technical reasons for being a superior alternative.

Re:Really Finally For-Real Time for Desktop Linux? (1)

thermian (1267986) | about 6 years ago | (#24651741)

Linux won't succeed 'because Windows fails', because the simple fact is, Microsoft wont fail.

Vista isn't good, the mob have spoken, but such is Microsoft's lead, they can screw it completely, spend several years making an alternative, and *still* beat Linux on the desktop.

Its all about their installed and entrenched userbase.

All Linux can hope for is to even the home desktop playing field over say, the next 5 to ten years, until Windows is just one of several alternatives.

Microsoft are likely to still dominate, or at least remain extremely strong in the Business desktop and document editing spaces for many years to come.

Of course in internet servers and database clusters, Microsoft have already lost to Linux, so that's something. That was because of the strengths of Linux though, not because Windows was bad.

Method for downgrading? (1)

hinosenshi (983544) | about 6 years ago | (#24651495)

I know the article mentions that it's possible to downgrade to XP if the computer is going to be used in a corporate environment, but I was wondering if it would be possible for the average consumer to downgrade?

Re:Method for downgrading? (2, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24651559)

Claim that you're purchasing the computer for a company.

And why not? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#24651505)

What does Vista give a business user who will typically want to run XP compatible apps? Not that many people need DirectX 10 support or support for content protected (i.e. DRM'ed) High Definition video at work. File explorer might be better but most users don't spend a lot of time doing anything remotely complicated with files - putting everything in "my Documents" usually works okay.

Server 2008 = Windows 7 (0)

Saint Stephen (19450) | about 6 years ago | (#24651511)

I'm running Server 2008 64-bit without the Desktop Experience role and 4GB of memory (on a 4ghz overclocked e8500), I might add. Boy I love saying that. I've been hanging out on a lot of OC forums lately.

Anyway, without the DE role, there is no Media Player, no installed WM codecs. I use VLC and Flash. It frickin flies. Beats the crap out of XP, and is way more modern feeling. It's nice. BTW, Windows 7 Server will be pretty much the same as Win2008. All W7 will be is what I have now :-)

Trust me, server 2008 is the way to go.

Re:Server 2008 = Windows 7 (4, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24651571)

I hate to break it to you, but you've stumbled on Mojave. Server 2008 is Vista to the core, minus some of the flair.

Re:Server 2008 = Windows 7 (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#24651857)

Geez, I wonder if my DAW applications will run on Server 2008. They are all 64-bit capable. I'd love to be able to use 8gig RAM. I've heard about this Server 2008 from some others, but until I get a friend with an MSDN copy to let me try it out I won't know for sure.

Blame the Windows Beta Programs (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651525)

I'll lay this out for everyone simply and clearly:

Windows XP Service Pack 2 had massive failure rates after its release. This was something which was supposed to be caught during the beta program (silly things like activation being permanently fried and boot bluescreens). There were numerous installation errors which were unrelated to antivirus programs as the team had specified (in fact, a heavy number of these install failures came from machines with no AV or with the AV disabled).

Fast forward to the Vista beta during 2005 and 2006. The same manager (Paul Donnelly. pauldon@microsoft.com) led this beta program through a trip of elitism and hell. Some testers would be massively rewarded for sucking up while others would have nasty bugs closed as being "by design" (including a number of major DWM CPU usage bugs).

The same coordinators managed the same two beta programs, leading to the same results. Paul and his team need to be canned, because they're not doing anything right.

Re:Blame the Windows Beta Programs (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24651677)

Maybe the bugs were 'by design' and all the conspiracy theories about Microsoft purposely making their software resource-intensive as a secret bargain with Intel are true!

I don't want to come to the defense of MS (1)

mistahkurtz (1047838) | about 6 years ago | (#24651725)

But... I ran Vista Ultimate x64 on my HP nc6400, core 2 2.0ghz, 2gb RAM, and the thing ran great. The only reason I got rid of it (was dual-booting) was the heat. My CPU idled at 72c, and with a little work, got close to 80c. If not for that, I'd still be running it.

it worked better with my hardware than OpenSuse 10, Debian 4 (and other distros) too.

I'm really beginning to wonder about these anti-Vista remarks I read all over the place. Seems like band-wagon jumping to me.... Yes, some things with Vista are stupid, and a bit counter-intuitive. But, XP Pro was a horrible OS when it came out, and wasn't fully embraced until SP2. Do people really expect a SP2-quality initial release? Anybody who works in software testing should be able to attest that this is impossible. No matter how thorough you check, test, and attempt to break the product, bugs still make it through. "Features" like UAC still make it through.

That's life, not the worst OS ever....

Describing my life at this very moment... (1)

uvsc_wolverine (692513) | about 6 years ago | (#24651747)

One of the departments on-campus where I do IT support just bought a bunch of POS Toshiba tablets for some faculty. They came with Vista. Vista doesn't work with most of our campus systems. I have to figure out how to get the tablets working properly using our campus license of XP Pro. I have three of them sitting in front of me that I am trying three different techniques on...we'll see how this goes. Vista...making IT miserable since November of 2006.

Lower in some markets. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 6 years ago | (#24651749)

I work for a smaller OEM that mainly provides computers to school districts around the state. I'd say approximately 80% off all our orders are downgrades. It may be interesting to note though that schools are more like to keep Vista on notebooks than pc.

The simple, long term test... (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 6 years ago | (#24651777)

The simple, long term test is whether software companies optimise their work for XP or Vista, given the choice. In the absence of a more popular OS the developers will concentrate on the most used variant of any give group. That's the best measure at the end of the day.

the if-only-they-could-just-be-not-bought dept. (1)

XanC (644172) | about 6 years ago | (#24651825)

The department name is actually quite insightful, because it brings up the point that numbers like this don't consider the PCs that weren't bought in the first place because of Vista.

Just wait a decade. . . (1, Interesting)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | about 6 years ago | (#24651863)

Up until this time last year, I was a proud and recalcitrant user of Win98.

I only switched to Win2000 when I started having trouble moving really big files over USB. Then my whole system did that 'releasing the magic smoke' thing and I had to buy a stack of dazzling new gear.

I was happy to discover upon switching to Win2000 that it worked really, really well. With all the service packs in place and all that jazz, I've now got a dream machine.

I waited nearly a whole decade before finally switching over, and that was enough time to see the OS clean itself up. It never crashes and does all I want/need. Cool.

I should add that I did try Ubuntu and a couple of other Linux versions first, but was dismayed to discover that my Wacom tablet wouldn't function properly under them. There are user support forums detailing long sets of baffling instructions on how to get tablets going right, but they didn't work for me and I just ended up frustrated. It reminded me of the days when ripping CD's to MP3 format was a touch & go command line process rather than the plaything of highly automated programs it is today. I'm not a Linux guru and I have no desire to climb the learning curve necessary to become one, so I dropped the whole affair. --Also QuarkExpress isn't supported by Wine. . . Oh well.

Linux is closer, and it looks fantastic and feels great to use, but it doesn't do easily (or possibly at all) what I need. When it finally arrives, I imagine I'll not need to switch to XP in 2017.

-FL

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>