Vista To XP Upgrade Triples In Price, Now $150 907
ozmanjusri writes "Dell has tripled the charge to upgrade Vista PCs to XP. Under current licensing 'downgrade' agreements, system builders can install XP Pro instead of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate; however, Dell has opted for a surcharge of $150 over the price of Vista for the older but more popular XP Professional operating system. Rob Enderle says the downgrade fees could potentially be disastrous for Microsoft: 'The fix for this should be to focus like lasers on demand generation for Vista but instead Microsoft is focusing aggressively on financial penalties," says Enderle. 'Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop.'"
It will work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's is huge! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so huge and its hold is so strong that even the giants like Microsoft, trying their hardest to destroy it, can't succeed.
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't know what all the resistance to Vista is all about. I've been using it everyday for the past 18 months plus, and I've never had a problem with it, and that's on what was a relatively low-end machine I bought three years ago. All my hardware works fine, it never crashes, and it's easy to use. It doesn't seem at all slow to me, either. And, yes, I also use Linux as my main computer at work. I just prefer Vista for its ease-of-use when I come home.
Yohoho! (Score:5, Insightful)
Merry Christmas and a bottle of rum! But seriously, combined with economic downturn, more and more people will just pirate it.
How do they rationalize it to the consumer, I'm kind of curious, given that they phrase it as a "downgrade"
Hello... I'm a PC (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait for the Apple ads to make fun of this. People are willing to pay extra to avoid Windows Vista.
Re:It will work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Somebody had to post it
No.
This could backfire by making XP look better (Score:5, Insightful)
That's partially true. People do believe the cost of something is related to it's value. Well now MS is implying that XP is better because it costs much more to have it. The sad thing is they're probably right in that it is better.
What?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It will work... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Being the consumer sheeple they are, they're going to go with what hits their wallet the least
The Pirate Bay
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
I installed it at home. I got a new computer with >4GB of RAM. And MS doesn't sell XP 64 anymore, so I installed Vista 64.
The UI is a ton better than XP.
Yes, it does have problems, sometimes it even burps while copying files, which is bizarre to me, since it's such a basic function.
But all in all it's pretty good, and I could hardly see going back to XP now.
Honestly, my biggest problem with Vista is that it appears MS is going to strand us Vista users and come out with Windows 7 next year with no affordable upgrade path.
Yeah, MS did some stupid stuff. Tying Direct X 10 to Vista was just one of them. But XP is past its prime.
Re:Hello... I'm a PC (Score:1, Insightful)
Can people buy Macs with older versions of their OS?
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hello... I'm a PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Can people buy Macs with older versions of their OS?
Why would we? The issue here is that Microsoft's "progression" of operating systems is sometimes forward, sometimes backward. Apple seems to be consistently moving forward.
Re:It will work... (Score:2, Insightful)
blah blah blah blah blah "sheeple" blah blah blah blah
Yes, look at all those sheeple, using stupid buzzwords that everyone else uses so they can feel superior. Good thing you're not just following the crowd, going on slashdot and calling windows users "sheeple"... Oh, wait...
-Taylor
Re:Microsoft's is huge! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is Linux more expensive than Windows? (Score:1, Insightful)
While the Microsoft schill, Enderle, might finally be right about something it does raise a major question.
Why do the PC vendors position their products so that Linux versions of their PCs are MORE expensive than Microsoft versions of the same basic thing. This is most notably the case with Dell and Asus.
In the case of both vendors, their Linux offerings are more expensive than their Windows offering. And while some might point out that the Asus EEE Linux version is more expensive because it has an SSD where the XP version has a regular hard drive, it still creates the perception that the Linux version is more expensive AND has far less storage.
Can I get a 160GB Linux based EEE. Sorry, no can do. It is cheaper to buy the Windows version and remove Windows and install Ubuntu. But why?
The conspiracy theorists may be able to argue that Microsoft is behind it in Dell's case but, I can't accept that Microsoft is forcing Asus to do the same. Why are they positioning Linux as the more expensive option?
Re:It will work... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people believe that Windows is synonymous with computers.
I disagree. Most people dont know either way. When I ask people what operating system they use the most common responses I get are...
I dont know
Microsoft
Internet Explorer
Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
This is something that can only happen when there is a monopoly involved. If there were a real and competitive environment, a vendor would not be able to do this to their customers without them choosing the competition.
It is so bad, that they aren't choosing competition, they are choosing to keep their previous product. Its pathetic.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year, I bought a medium level $800 Acer desktop for my aunt/uncle. I was tired of wrestling with their XP Home 500 mhz celeron. It wasn't just the slow speed, but the lack of UAC that made basic security with these two a nightmare. They wouldn't take Ubuntu because they absolutely had to have Quickbooks for the 3 invoices they wrote on it a year (I'm not joking, it's what they knew and didn't want alternatives to).
I will admit, with UAC, and putting them on non-administrative (just standard) accounts with Firefox on, Vista is much nicer than XP in this direction.
But when I got the computer, in addition to Acer's stupid and ultimately useless bloatware sucking up all the speed, Microsoft's Aero was set for maximum bling on integrated graphics. It took the computer minutes to start up. The entire time, out of the box, it sounded like it was grinding (and it was grinding to a halt with the hourglass every few minutes) as it was constantly swapping even with 2GB ram.
I stopped all that with over 15 tedious uninstalls of various components of Acer's pre-installed bloatware (why oh why can't MS have a synaptic type installer/uninstaller with multiple installs/uninstalls at once?) and stopping several services and setting all of the visual effects to minimize asides a few font/other smoothing settings. The machine felt several times faster.
But most of that is beyond the regular user. This computer, brand new, felt like a dog out of the box. Why Acer does this is beyond me, it can't look good for them. But more than that, why Microsoft lets them, will be the death of them one day. This is Apple's big win - their computers just work out of the box. And feel new and fast.
While the bloatware is not new, it's gets worse every reiteration. What is new is MS's own default settings are dragging the systems down. Not even uninstalls make it better. People have to muck with the systems.
I suppose that is part of the resistance to Vista. Security wise, and some other things (like icon/thumbnail browsing and editing - rotation) is much nicer. I like not seeing .db thumbnail files in every directory. Big win there. But the experience out of the box is abysmal.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you quantify that? What tasks are quicker to perform? What functionality is easier to find?
Re:Bender sez... (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalists call it "persuasion".
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bender sez... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am erotic. You are kinky. They are perverts.
We protect. Our allies enforce. Our enemies oppress.
Government appropriates. Telecoms lobby. WiFi users steal.
It all depends on your point of view.
XP Pro is worth more (Score:5, Insightful)
They charge more for XP Pro, so it must be more valuable than Vista. I'll go with that instead.
Before Windows 7 invasion ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Salt the XP fields as thoroughly as possible.
Re:Tyrone the Linux nigger's open letter to Ballme (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a great point. It's a shame the moderators are racist. People want to buy XP. Microsoft needs new leadership that provides what the customer wants.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but explain eight years of Bush to me then.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
I never understood the resistance to New Coke [wikipedia.org]. It tasted fine to me and I drank it with no problem. But apparently many people didn't like it and complained. They wanted the old Coke. Fortunately, The Coca-Cola Company listened to their customers and gave them what they wanted. They returned to the old formula with Coke Classic and customers returned to buying their products. Nothing leads to success like listening to the customer and selling them the product that they want.
As far as operating systems are concerned, I think this basic principle of marketing is still true. If people want XP and are willing to pay for it, then why not continue to sell it? Microsoft is continuing to support it for another four years. It costs little to continue to manufacture it. That way the people who want XP can get it and the people who want Vista, or don't care, can get it. Everyone wins.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
no only does that no begin to qualify as a low end machine but that would give good to great performance in any game on the market and will continue to do so for a few years.
The baseline for smooth operating system performance should be a 4 year old stock dell value consumer desktop.
Think 1+ghz celeron/duron, with 256mb ram, 64mb of which is dedicated to run the onboard intel video chipset. Probably an 80gb drive, a dvd-rom, 10/100 nic with cheap chipset.
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft can spray all the marketing turd polish they want on Vista but it will still stink.
Vista, with good drivers, is JUST AS GOOD AS XP.
Is it different, in a way that some are scared by? Sure. If you use XP drivers, is it worse? Yep. But Windows Vista isn't any worse than Windows XP, and if you're getting a new PC you might as well get the new OS as well.
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:4, Insightful)
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
I don't believe a Windows that runs like a dog even if you blow $1,000 on new hardware and that has been designed to allow Microsoft to de-escalate your privileges when it pleases them (turn on full DRM or apply other, stealth "updates") describes XP nearly as well as it describes Vista.
Ballmer should be on his hands and knees begging Allchin to come back. Even promise him a chair on the board, if he can find one.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
So when you want to run zapthealiens.exe, you hit windows+escape, type in "zap" and hit enter, and it auto-executes zapregistry.exe for you. Some progress, that.
Unix has had file completion for decades now, starting with csh and "set filec". But no-one has, to my knowledge, yet been stupid enough to make an autocomplete that makes a guess and presents or executes what's most likely. The user must make a choice, and the order choices are presented in are static and won't change depending on usage. To do otherwise is sheer stupidity. It defeats motoric learning.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista is brought down on its knees even when copying big files around.
I have to wonder whether this is because it is checking you aren't copying anything M$ thinks you shouldn't.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you compared Vista to XP on the same machine? I find that's where the biggest differences are apparent. Perhaps I have an odd usage model, but I generally want Windows to get out of my way while I use applications, not watch shiny things eat my battery life and slow down background processes.
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there really any reason to upgrade to Vista (aside from the "we're forcing you to upgrade through lack of support" nonsense)? Upgrading to XP got most (home) users onto the NT codebase, but what does upgrading to Vista really give to end users? That pretty GUI which requires 2GB ram and 3d hardware to run smoothly? Tch. I'll pass, thanks.
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It will work... (Score:1, Insightful)
That may be true, if so don't you think *those* people will just take the vista anyway? They won't know any better to "downgrade" to XP Pro. This is really geared towards forcing businesses to Upgrade their computer systems to Vista. Most companies still haven't made the universal switch to Vista, they keep on purchasing XP Pro, copies or licences. That is the real target of this I think.
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:5, Insightful)
I bought my wife a computer for Christmas for around 300 - no monitor.
She asked that I install Linux on it for her.
She wasn't home when I set it up so I decided to give vista a whirl thinking that surely it isn't as resource intensive as everyone here makes it out to be.
This was not a high end system, but a definite upgrade from her old computer. It was a 2.1GHz 64 bit Dual Core Processor with 2 gig of ram.
It was worse than I could have imagined. The only thing that was fast was the boot time but afterward everything was almost non-responsive and did not get much better after all the drivers were installed.
I ended up installing 64 bit Debian Sid withe KDE 4 from experimental.
KDE 4 is blew Vista out of the water in terms of speed. I can't compare much of the features because Vista took so damn long to do anything I finally gave up.
Re:It will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it will work, people who can't stand the small change from XP to Vista, will not tolerate a change to Linux... the only problem for Microsoft is that they might say "screw it, instead of paying $150 for a downgrade I better get a Mac" so they might switch to Mac out of spite even though are not comfortable with the OS.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
There used to such a think as a responsible business.
Being consumer friendly was not always considered an anti-business approach.
And while it may be the norm, it is still not an excuse.
Part of an old culture, early PC performance curve (Score:5, Insightful)
I've personally never liked the idea of replacing a 7-year-old machine only to get the exact same (or worse) performance.
Amen. I believe this is a matter of cultural momentum. During the early days of PC adoption, you could easily forecast that hardware would become faster, memory would become plentiful, and (here's the important bit) that people would be hungry for improvement. This latter point was a crucial business driver, because there was so much unrealised potential in the PC during the early era. Can you actually write an entire book using a PC for example? You can now, but it wasn't so easy then.
When you look at today's performance and price curves, the forecasts have diverged a bit, and the business drivers will again be that strong. You can't keep adding multipliers to the resources an OS needs, because hardware capability isn't increasing logarithmically any more. And more to the point, the hunger isn't there any more. Superb capability has become a commodity, so there is little perceived need to fund improvements.
The issue with Microsoft is that -- largely due to their size -- they have been working on the assumption that people will always hunger for more, when in fact those needs have largely been met by now. If they really want to remain profitable, they should simply stop innovating, cut their team down to where their momentum is less than that of continental drift, and print copies of XP Pro to people who will still continue to insist on Windows for new computers. The rest of us would be grateful to them if they did.
Re:Vista is really not that bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you do real work with it.
Vista Test by me.
Client DEMANDED Vista. we gave it to him.
Accounting software stopped working. Upgraded to a tune of $4500.00 to make it work.
Software for the CNC machines stopped working. (reporting and program generation) no solution. Must dual boot to XP or VMWARE to XP.
Software for CAD. Stopped working (Autocad Dongle Vista Issue.) Upgrade to fix the issue $8900.00
Vista COST that company well over $20,000.00 and give them a hit on productivity.
My Personal test... video editign station. New Vista system: Editing software fails or errors a LOT. under XP on the SAME HARDWARE it has no failures.
Vendor has no workable solution other than "we are working on that"
Vista take a working computer and makes it not work for it's job.
Now, I can switch from industry standard pro video editing software to one of the crappy toys that works under vista. but then the HDMI capture card and the other analog capture cards fail to operate as they DONT HAVE VISTA DRIVERS.
Vista is great for a home PC that is not used for anything. Vista sucks when you make money on the Computer and HAVE TO have the system work no matter what.
Hence almost EVERY corporation has no plants to upgrade to Vista. Even microsoft Puppets like Comcast are not doing it.
The word sheeple is abusive (Score:4, Insightful)
What's also dreadful about it is that it's an excuse for your inability to get your ideas over. You convince yourself that it's not that your ideas are wrong, or that your arguments are weak, or that your communication skills aren't up to the job. No, it's because people are sheeple, so it's not your fault.
Re:It will work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
For everything else, including Microsoft Office, I use Linux. Any Windows software that I need runs fine under Codeweaver's Crossover Office. Even at that, I use OpenOffice almost exclusively now.
I don't understand why anyone bothers with Microsoft Windows any more. Linux is so wonderful now and does everything I need it too with the one exception of Flight Simulator. That's it.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The UI is a ton better than XP.
Yes, it does have problems, sometimes it even burps while copying files, which is bizarre to me, since it's such a basic function.
So you value the UI more highly than correct functionality during file copy? To me that says you don't do anything important with your computer. I have stuff I can't replace on my computers. My laptop dual boots with Vista and I find I fire up the Vista partition on average once every 6 months.
But XP is past its prime.
XP does everything I need and is more stable. If you call that "past its prime" give me "past its prime" every time please.
Re:It will work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't know what all the resistance to Vista is all about. I've been using it everyday for the past 18 months plus, and I've never had a problem with it
The problem is your failure to understand that not everyone uses the same hardware as you and not everyone does the same things that you do on your computer.
It's the same as the developer who closes a bug report with "Works on my computer".
Re:Part of an old culture, early PC performance cu (Score:3, Insightful)
People will not abandon XP for mac/linux (Score:2, Insightful)
"'Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop.'""
I've heard this argument before but it just doesn't make sense. Here's why:
I am a computer user that uses windows. I can buy a machine with windows, a good one, for $500 or less. But its got, vista, I don't like vista. So what do most slashdotters think will happen next?
1) abandon windows and buy a mac that costs twice as much as a windows pc
2) abandon windows and buy a cheaper pc running linux
3) user buys vista machine for $500
I would say a normal rational shopper would go with number 3.
Here's why 1 wouldn't be an option.
It is irrational to pay twice as much for a computer that does basically the same thing and has a much different interface.
Here's why 2 wouldn't be an option.
The shopper is less likely to find a computer running linux for sale in a store or online, if they weren't specifically shopping for a linux pc. In addition, if they knew anything about linux they would realize it can't run word, internet explorer, itunes or most of the other programs they want without a high level of expertise.
Here's why 3 would be the choice:
Its available. Vista is easier to transition to if you are already familiar with windows xp. The price is cheaper than mac. You can run most of your programs you want on it.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's impossible to have a rational argument over semantics..
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Playing devil's advocate:
Perhaps MS are tired of providing service packs and countless patches for a 7-year-old operating system so they're passing on the costs of keeping the XP dev team fed to the people who make them necessary?
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:4, Insightful)
The magic new feature is support.
Windows 98 did die out because it was broken, there were plenty of after market software solutions that could more then make up for any of 98's downfalls. But then companies like Avira and Mozilla go to Microsoft to get support insight and help integrating their products into Vista and all the sudden the coincidence of ending the life of the windows 98 support for a lot of the products. They same happened with windows 2000 which technically should be able to run almost everything XP could. SO your right in that XP might not be missing anything. It won't become functionally obsolete, it will just get left behind in some sort of unconcerned move every software vendor will make to newer MS products.
In other words, there will come a time when you need something and you will end up having to upgrade to get it or the free and open source products like Mozilla will just ignore the platform and no one with the skill will pick it up.
Re:Vista is really not that bad... (Score:1, Insightful)
>Why is it Microsofts fault that hardware manufacturers refused to put out new drivers, or could not get them out in time?
>I don't get this, when the same scenario exists for linux, there are howls and hate hoots for the hardware manufacturer. Switch Linux for Vista and suddenly its all Microsofts fault...
It isn't the same scenario, that is why.
Microsoft expects hardware manufacturers to write drivers. What incentive is there for a hardware company to do that for hardware they have already sold? This is especially the case for hardware that is no longer in production (i.e. last year's model).
On the other hand, Linux writes its own drivers. All that Linux developers want is information (such as register mappings) to be able to do so. Since the hardware company already has that information, all that is need is for the hardware company to let the Linux developers see it. Linux developers will not only write the driver for you for no cost, they will maintain it until there is zero demand for it, and they will even sign an NDA if you would like.
Linux developers will also generate and work with source code, so that a 64-bit version of the driver is only a re-compile away. Having source code also means that older hardware is supported by Linux for far longer ... unlike Windows it is not necessary to try to install an old binary-only copy from a years-old CDROM, and pray that it still works with a much newer (and still binary-only) kernel.
Re:Vista is really not that bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
The scenarios you described are less the fault of Windows and more due to the fatal flaw in the proprietary software model.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I have tried it, which is why I am so totally against presenting a default choice based on recorded usage (i.e. the OS second-guessing). That mean that at times, what is presented as default or topmost entry will change, and this is incredibly stupid.
It requires that the user has to read the choices before acting. It defeats learning the choices, and doing it automatically. Which people will do anyhow, because it's natural, and then it will sooner or later bite them.
It all started with the "dynamic" start menu in Windows XP. It was a bad idea, which made tech support a hell of a lot harder (even when all machines were configured identically, tech support couldn't tell a user "pick the System Tools menu, it's near the top", because chances are it wouldn't be displayed at all, or be displayed somewhere different). And now Microsoft has taken the stupidity one step further by not only changing the layout based on perceived usage, but also the actual choices.
Any UI expect can tell you that THE MAIN IMPORTANT design factor is to provide consistency. Consistency, consistency, consistency. Even when it looks fugly, it trumps a UI feature that looks awesome but is inconsistent.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but explain eight years of Bush to me then.
Seems to have worked quite well. You're blaming Bush and not the smart people.
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:3, Insightful)
...Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than XP....
That question might be re-stated: Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than Mac OSX?
I still have an iBook G4 that came with OSX.3 originally and was upgraded later to 768M of RAM. Since I had bought a family license of OSX.5 (leopard) for our other Macs, I decided to upgrade the G4. It runs faster and better now than when it was new. This is also the case with our original Mac mini, which is now used for music and video, driving our 47 inch LCD television. Also, the same scanner and printer drivers that worked with OSX.3 work just the same with OSX.5, which is not the case with old XP drivers working on VISTA.
Any time you upgrade old hardware with a newer version of Windows, performance drops significantly. The only way you can get performance back up, is to throw or give away the old hardware and buy a new computer. When you buy a decent name brand (not the cheapest junk available) new computer with VISTA, its performance is about the same or slightly better than the old one with XP. The biggest reason why Microsoft does this, is because they make most of their money not from user upgrades of their OS, but from the manufacturers of new computers. They force the users to buy new hardware, so that they can run improved software. So, if forced to buy a new computer anyway, to run VISTA, why not get a Mac and be done with malware infested Windows forever? It seems that some of the smarter people out there are coming to a very logical conclusion. This is why, even in a recession, the more expensive Macs are still selling well.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tyrone the Linux nigger's open letter to Ballme (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm... Wasn't the reason people hate linux that they have to google around for fixes for things that should work out of the box, and wasn't the great part of Windows that every end user can just use the computer without having to tweak it...?
Re:Bender sez... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
What do I turn off to make TCP/IP over Firewire [microsoft.com] work?
What about my favourite XP extension [sourceforge.net]?
I bought a laptop that was pretty high spec with Vista installed and didn't mind the performance so much as the lack of features I use every day.
I put XP on it, but if you can tell me, I may reinstall Vista.
(OK, you got me. That was a lie.)
Re:Microsoft's Turd (Score:1, Insightful)
Uhm ... comparing apples with apples ... if Linux is pre-installed on a machine like Windows normally is, end users will have a near-identical experience with each one ... everything will "just work" every end user can just use the computer without having to tweak it.
If one has a random bare machine and a Windows install disk and also a Linux LiveCD install disk ... then for ease of use today the Linux experience will beat the Windows experience hands down no contest. For a start ... only the Linux LiveCD will let one test the machine to makes sure everything will work before you attempt to install it. Linux will not ask for CD keys, registration or activation. Linux will let you have as many user accounts as you want, and any version of Linux will work with business networks. Linux will work for vastly more hardware out-of-the-box than Windows will.
Re:It will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
I still want it to be able to spec a full Linux desktop with all the hardware supported fully. Why is this still so hard for them when the commmunity has 99% of all the issues sorted already?
And you can'd do that at www.dell.com/ubuntu [dell.com] why?
Last I checked Dell Ubuntu machines had everything work... and as far as custom-built... my last desktop upgrade using a Gigabyte motherboard went smooth as butter. Everything recognized in Ubuntu 8.10 without an issue.