Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft

MS Reportedly Adds 6 Months of Vista Downgrade 244

LiteralKa sends in a poorly sourced Reg story claiming that Microsoft has granted OEMs six more months to sell PCs using Windows Vista with the support to downgrade to Windows XP. OEMs can now offer such arrangements until July 31, 2009 — the previous deadline was January 31, 2009. The article claims as source "a Reg reader" without further details. Neither Microsoft nor any OEM has confirmed the rumor, and only a few scattered bloggers have picked it up.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Reportedly Adds 6 Months of Vista Downgrade

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Vista Home (Score:3, Informative)

    by Giometrix ( 932993 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @10:31AM (#25245807) Homepage

    It also gives me access to 4 gigs of ram with zero driver problems, unlike XP64, and the general OS responsiveness is improved over XP.

    How did you manage to accomplish this? Vista only shows 3 and a little bit gigs of RAM, even though my BIOS sees 4. Any help would be appreciated.

    Do you have Vista32 installed?

  • Re:Vista Home (Score:2, Informative)

    by gsgriffin ( 1195771 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @10:31AM (#25245813)
    If you're running a 32bit system, you will max out with memory allocation at around 3.2G, you need the 64bit version to see 4G, don't you?
  • Re:Vista Home (Score:5, Informative)

    by matrim99 ( 123693 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @10:36AM (#25245915) Homepage

    Vista 32 can only see 4 gigs MINUS memory address space reserved for hardware (video card(s) and other hardware that require reserved memory). This typically results in 3 to 3.3 gigs being available in Vista 32 with 4+ gigs of RAM installed on the computer (same thing with XP 32). To see more than this with any Windows flavor, you must use the 64 bit version (XP or Vista).

  • Re:Vista Home (Score:3, Informative)

    by xded ( 1046894 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @10:51AM (#25246191)
    Correct. Read here [technet.com] for more info.
  • Re:Thank God (Score:3, Informative)

    by H0p313ss ( 811249 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @11:17AM (#25246577)

    Blame HP, not microsoft. The driver for my all in one Brother laser installed perfectly in Vista x64. If it's possible for one company to do it correctly and make it easy for the user then it's possible for any company to do it. It sounds like HP dropped the ball. What is your logic for blaming it on Vista?

    Sounds like all the problems are very hardware dependant. I purchased a new computer because my gaming machine would not run COD4 well and the resulting Vista machine not only out-performs everthing I've had before it also supported my HP printer out of the box. I actually set aside a day to move my printer and scanner over from their previous host and deal with all the driver issues, instead I found myself finished in hardly more time than it took to rearrange the cabling.

    NB I'm no microsoft fan... I spend 80% of my professional time writing Java with Eclipse, about 10% of it on Linux. I am a huge proponent of and occasional contributor to FOSS. My linux experience goes back 14 years at least... if I poke around I can probably find the 0.9 floppy disk somewhere. My phone runs linux [openmoko.org]! AND I AM VERY VERY VERY SATISFIED WITH MY VISTA GAMING MACHINE

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @11:25AM (#25246683)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Vista Home (Score:4, Informative)

    by 644bd346996 ( 1012333 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @12:58PM (#25247979)

    You need 64-bit Windows for Windows to see more than 4GB of RAM, but that's only because Windows is so poorly written. It's support for PAE in the workstation-class editions is half-assed at best, even though PAE has been near universal since the Pentium Pro. XP SP2 even requires PAE for full use of the Data Execution Prevention, but Microsoft has never enabled a 32-bit non-server operating system to access more that 4GB of RAM.

    They clearly could, and it's obvious that over the past several years there's been quite a bit of demand for PAE support on 32-bit systems, but Microsoft has never deigned to supply that. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this wouldn't be the case if the desktop operating system market were even somewhat competitive.

  • Re:Vista Home (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sinbios ( 852437 ) on Friday October 03, 2008 @01:22PM (#25248273) Homepage

    You need 64-bit Windows for Windows to see more than 4GB of RAM, but that's only because Windows is so poorly written. It's support for PAE in the workstation-class editions is half-assed at best, even though PAE has been near universal since the Pentium Pro. XP SP2 even requires PAE for full use of the Data Execution Prevention, but Microsoft has never enabled a 32-bit non-server operating system to access more that 4GB of RAM.

    32bit systems don't have enough addressing space for 4GB of RAM, cuz 2^32 - 1 = 4,294,967,295. This space is also shared with other hardware. It's not because Windows is poorly written. Microsoft can't just turn on a magical switch that lets a 32bit OS see all 4GB of RAM.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...