Submitted by “I feel for the folks hawking Vista right now. There are too many conflicting pieces of information coming out of Redmond to figure out what to tell customers – especially business customers – who are wondering when/whether to upgrade. Consider the evidence.”
I have that question too. I just bought a notebook that shipped with Vista Home Premium OEM. I want XP on it. I already installed it but i’m using an ‘internetkey’ for the moment.
Anybody knows if I can trade my Vista license for an XP pro one?
Anybody knows if I can trade my Vista license for an XP pro one?
No idea about trading a license but my mother just had this same issue with a dell laptop, some software she uses for work does not support vista.
My solution was to use a Dell XP Pro OEM CD which installed on her laptop and activated automatically since the machine is a Dell.
Depending on who manufactured your machine you may be able to just find and install an OEM copy of XP from that manufacturer.
if u want legal xp on some brand notebooks u should try to obtain several oembios files and a proper key from some original install on that notebook.
http://oembios.net
search topics on http://msfn.org and http://neowin.net for example
MS call things “rich”, we’ve had feature rich, meaning bloated and now “fact rich” which means, err.. fact sheet
Yeah, that’s rich. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich)
😉
You mean bullet point 6, “very amusing or absurd”? Only in this case it’s not just $20.
Barnabyh
I figure it’s because (to quote an 80’s hair band) they are “Dirty, Rotten, Filthy, Stinking Rich.”
Well I wont be updating soon
My experience so far have not been great, on one PC it refuses to use the right screen resolution 1440×900 (XP and Ubuntu no problem) I’m sure I can sort this out but it doesn’t just work!, wireless drivers difficult to find on the net and not on the cd (XP and Ubuntu no problem). And Office 2000 doesn’t work properly
On an average PC with a gig of Ram it’s slow.
Finding settings is a pain, not only because they’re not in the same place as XP but because of the over use of wizards.
On the plus side we now have adequate security and it looks better than XP although I think it will look dated very quickly.
Hahahahahah.
He said “adequate” not “impressive”….
// My experience so far have not been great, on one PC it refuses to use the right screen resolution 1440×900 (XP and Ubuntu no problem) I’m sure I can sort this out but it doesn’t just work!, wireless drivers difficult to find on the net and not on the cd (XP and Ubuntu no problem). And Office 2000 doesn’t work properly //
Hmm, sounds like the same complaints of a number of anti Linux folks.
From a volume licensing standpoint, I’m not entirely sure why Microsoft would be pushing so hard for Vista uptake. Depending on the language, you should be licensed for a certain number of back versions of Windows. Microsoft has to know that organizations, large and small, don’t run face first into a new platform which you can consider Vista to be. People still run Windows 2000 on lots of business desktops.
Whether current desktops are running XP or Vista should be somewhat irrelevant assuming the licensing money paid back to Microsoft doesn’t change.
You could make the argument however that adopting Vista will somehow lock you into Microsoft for more time which is very possible; however, there’s nothing technically to stop a company currently running Vista from dumping it in the near future aside from potentially wasting the cost incurred from moving to Vista in the first place.
They want Vista sales to be high so that stock-holder confidence (and hence their stock price) stays high. If you were (or are) a Microsoft stock-holder, it might give you reason for concern about the company’s focus and direction if the products they spent so much time and money developing just got left on the shelves in favor of an old version. This is the reason that they are also going to stop giving OEMs the capability to sell systems with Office 2003 instead of Office 2007 this summer.
As for the SP1 portion of the article…well, one of the companies I support is still using Windows 2000 on the desktop, for crying out loud, and several others will not allow IE7 on their XP desktop systems because of the amount of testing required to ensure the proper functionality of internal web apps, etc.
Large corporations in particular tend to be ruthless about standardization, and the amount of testing that would have to go into the deployment of Vista across an enterprise-level environment is a daunting task, to say the least. Of course, those companies use their volume licensing agreements and deploy machines with standardized images, so that really isn’t who their “push” is going to get.
If the home (or small business) user can only buy machines with Vista and Office 2007, then regardless of whether they would be chosen otherwise Microsoft can point to their sales figures at the end of the year and say, “Hey, check it out! Vista and Office 2007 have been selling like hotcakes!” and their stock price will perhaps get a boost.
when you can Nlite/vlite one and get an unbloated version without stupid activation webby serial prompts , and burn to cd. I removed all that crap including mshtml.dll(core of Internet explorer) stuff like that makes windows insecure , im using k-meleon web browser instead , works for me.
How do you deal with updates that might need to touch components you have removed? Just curious.
Why should i ever update? At times updates could force one to reinstall. I removed the features that create bugs over the web, the os has no communication with internet except my programs like web browser.
Updates are just bloated solutions to mine
In our workplace, a couple of the big apps we use will not even support Vista for another year. We couldn’t migrate even if we wanted to. Not that we want to spend a bunch of money on Vista licenses anyway when our XP boxes are doing just fine.
In our workplace, a couple of the big apps we use will not even support Vista for another year.
Most people point to application support as proof that “Vista sucks!”, when in reality what they ought to be saying is “Our application sucks”, and asking the vendor why, with a 5 year development cycle, they couldn’t be bothered to develop for the next Microsoft OS.
Nearly every application that breaks under Vista breaks because it doesn’t bother adhering to even *basic* standards for application development that have existed since Windows 2000 (or earlier).
And don’t get me started on vendors who develop so-called web applications that require ActiveX– Or in one particular case, requires the Microsoft Java VM.
It might not even be that the apps break, it’s just that we won’t get vendor support. You can’t just ride it out when you’re paying a few grand per seat.
Quote “Nearly every application that breaks under Vista breaks because it doesn’t bother adhering to even *basic* standards for application development that have existed since Windows 2000 (or earlier.”
Yes and that includes Microsoft office
Yes and that includes Microsoft office
Not really. Office only writes to locations that the user should be expected to write to– the user’s profile space. Privilege escalation is requested through normal channels. Care to provide some actual examples, instead of rhetoric?
There are a lot of applications out there that write to “bad” locations. Even a game like World of Warcraft, which runs fine under Vista (thanks to the shadow copying) writes numerous configuration and profile settings to the WoW installation directory, typically “c:program filesWorld of Warcraft”.
WoW specifically states that it requires Windows 2000 or higher, yet isn’t actually written for multi-user systems.
If someone wrote a linux application that required write access to /usr/local, no one would run it, and the author(s) would be publicly ridiculed.
Under Windows, the equivalent behavior has been tolerated for years. Now that Vista is making life difficult for poorly written applications, everyone blames Vista.
I’ll agree this is a mess Microsoft made for itself, and that Vista’s security has a long way to go. Most of the blame here, however, still lies with application vendors developing code as if we were still running Windows 95.
Quote “Care to provide some actual examples, instead of rhetoric?”
Sorry been away for a day or so, but Access 2000 is short of two dll files, obviously this is easy to fix although why this needs to be fixed and why in Vista can you not follow the symbolic links?
Outlook 2000 just won’t work in Vista with imap folders, numerous problems.
… for their next OS, they should release SP1 shortly after the System, this way they won’t have to worry about the people waiting for SP1 anymore…
1) Microsoft trying to push OEM’s to go Windows Vista exclusively definitely shows desperation of Microsoft – if Windows Vista was so good, they wouldn’t need to go to such measures to persuade vendors – in fact, if it was really good, it would be vendors actively promoting and celebrating Windows Vista.
2) Windows Vista has compatibility issues, and for me, this is the prime example of what happens when you put unrealistic backwards compatibility as your number one goal when developing an operating system.
I’d sooner have applications not work at all, than having application compatibility that is iffy at best – what is so hard for Microsoft to bundle a copy of Virtual PC and Windows XP for those who need backwards compatibility?
3) There are issues with Windows Vista; even if you take out application and hardware compatibility (which are more or less out of Microsoft’s control), there are still issues which plague it.
Bugginess; the iffy consistency; in a space of 5 minutes, I clocked up 5 different widget sets used in bundled Windows Vista applications – when are we going to have some consistency with the bundled applications?
You may find this fact distasteful, but Windows enjoys a monopoly on PC desktop operating systems. It doesn’t matter how much you think Vista sucks. What matters is that every minute of every day for the next few years, Vista will continue to be sold and, eventually, the market share will overtake Windows XP. Microsoft is neither desperate nor worried that alternative operating systems are going to displace Vista. Vista’s only competition is coming from XP, but the reality is that XP will be end-of-life’d and OEMs won’t have any choice but select Vista as their default offering.
I know that a lot of you have strong opinions about what the desktop operating market should look like, but don’t confuse your own wishes with reality. People who do that are delusional, and that’s not any way to go through life. ;-p
Why are you insulting everyone here when clearly you cannot see the main point of Microsoft’s announcement.
I, at this stage, have decided to hold onto my Microsoft shares, but others are getting scared and are thinking of dumping them while the price is stable.
Compare this for a second.
Coca-Cola corp a few years back changed the recipe for Coke. It was a flop. People hated it. So they had to capitulate and release Coke Classic.
Coke Classic outsold new recipe Coke, as this was what the customers wanted. However, both versions were still being sold.
Coca-Cola shareholders lost faith with the company and a lot of them pulled out and sold shares. The value of the company dropped a lot, and the only way back was to make the decision to give the public what they wanted. So new recipe Coke was dropped and Classic Coke became Coke once again. Share prices went back up.
Microsoft’s shareholders at this moment in time are at that stage where they think the company has made a very bad decision and are not giving the people what they want.
Shareholders are normally people who have no interest in the product or the company itself, but are purely there to make money, and if the companies premium product is not outselling the older version, the shareholders will not stick around for the few years you and others think it will take for Vista to overtake XP.
Things are looking bad for Microsoft.
Why are you insulting everyone here when clearly you cannot see the main point of Microsoft’s announcement.
Read for comprehension: I asked how delusional “some of you” are. Some != everyone.
Coca-Cola doesn’t have a monopoly on soft drinks. Microsoft does have a monopoly on desktop PC operating systems.
It’s way too early to decide that “things are looking bad for Microsoft”. I hear plenty of complaints from the GNU side of the aisle but not a whole lot from people that actually bought and are using Vista.
I hear plenty of complaints from the GNU side of the aisle but not a whole lot from people that actually bought and are using Vista.
Yeah, they cannot get onto forums like this to complain because Vista’s IP6 implementation is broken, and this whoses their new network stack.
lol
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=959270&Sit…
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1008&blogid=4
Edited 2007-06-24 09:49
Yeah, they cannot get onto forums like this to complain because Vista’s IP6 implementation is broken, and this whoses their new network stack.
Clue phone, it’s for you: Like the average person is even using IP6.
When customers are reluctant to upgrade until a couple of sub releases in you simply ask them why and accept their reasons; then you attempt to work on them but realize that the solution to this problem may simply be a couple of sub releases before the software is ready for everyone.
At Microsoft they inform you that you’re wrong, and this release is different. This one is the most stable and secure to date!
The only version of Windows that could have been expected to be a good general release immediately was XP because of the short term of development. And anyone who tried it before SP1 remembers thinking “why did I upgrade from Win2k?”
Want to know how to sell more copies of Windows Vista Microsoft? Listen to your customers and work as quickly as possible to get a solid service pack out soon. Fire the marketing department (you have one of the worst in the industry).
I’m very psyched about OS 10.5, and I’ll probably still wait a while after its released to see what the updates and complaints look like before I dare to blow $130 and a few hours to do a clean install (it’s my personal preference).
If I were a Windows user I wouldn’t have upgraded to Vista until it’d been out for about a year. That’s just how long it takes for windows device manufacturers and ISV’s to catch up and for the platform to get a service pack fixing the initial issues.