$50 to Get XP On a New Dell

CWmike writes "Dell will charge customers up to $50 for factory-installed Windows XP on some PCs after Wednesday, according to the company's Web site. Buyers of the low-priced Vostro line of desktops and notebooks will pay $20 to $50 more for Windows XP Professional installed as a 'downgrade' from Windows Vista Business or Vista Ultimate than they would for Vista only."

It's like divorce

it's expensive, but it's worth it.

Re:It's like divorce

It's a pretty sad statement about a product when people are willing to pay MORE not to use it.

Forget about Apple Mr. Gates, you're doing a good job of self-destructing.

Re:It's like divorce

It's only sad because MS spent 5+ years working on Vista, and now people want to pay not to use it. It's not sad in the more general sense, that people want to pay more to use a better product.

Re:It's like divorce

I would have paid $50 to have Win98 installed over ME a number of years ago. It's somehow comforting to know that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re:It's like divorce

MS business model

1. Write software that works 90% of the time and crashes randomly 10% of the time (who cares the 10% is during critical computing)
2. Wait, release patches.
3. Release new version of OS so crappy the public will be happy to use the 90% ware and pay to downgrade
4. Profit

5+ Years

I think this is a big part of the problem. When you have that kind of time line, the project loses focus. Remember all of the things that were supposed to be in Vista but were dropped along the way? There never seemed to be a clear vision of what it was supposed to be. It doesn't have to be that way. NASA certainly has shown that long term projects can have spectacular results.

Re:It's like divorce

It's not sad in the more general sense, that people want to pay more to use a better product.

Indeed, but for my $50 I would rather have a properly supported version of Windows 2000. It's all been downhill since there.

Re:It's like divorce

Yeah, and the reason for the divorce?

She's gaining weight and trying to control you.

Re:It's like divorce

I want the Operating System I married 5-7 years ago!

Re:It's like divorce

That is pretty funny, but interestingly enough, the original XBOX360 dev kits were Apple G5s (IBM PPC 970) running some kind of NT kernel. At some video game industry shows, playable game demos were actually running on Apple G5 workstations.

It's Twitter, Slashdot Duped Again!

This story is a cut and paste job from Twitter's journal [slashdot.org], made within two hours of the twitter post. CWMike must be another Twitter sock puppet and this story is just more hysterical FUD about Vista [slashdot.org].

Re:It's like divorce

And just like divorce, the one you switch to is lighter weight, less nag-y, and easier to use. In this case it is older but it also has more experience.

Re:It's like divorce

XP is officially a cougar.

It's an upgrade,

why else would you pay more.

Better idea:

How much would they add as a surcharge to ship any model I choose WITHOUT a Microsoft operating system on it?

As in: "...can you just send me the laptop with nothing at all installed on the hard disk? I intend to install (Ubuntu/Fedora/OpenSuSE) on it. No, I really don't want anything in the way of tech support outside of parts and labor."

/P

Microsoft Monopoly

Yet again we see proof that Microsoft has a monopoly. If there were real competition in the market, people would not be forced to bend over and pay more. There would be competition, Dell would have to offer it at the same price or another operating system would win.

Also, if there were competition, Microsoft would not have the economic ability to decide to drop a product that people wanted and force them into something they didn't. If I was a share holder and there was actual competition in the market place, I'd have the board and CEO fired for failing their fiduciary responsibilities.

But since they have a monopoly, there is no economic feedback.

Staying with Windows 2000

I'm still running Windows 2000 on the last Windows machine. It's so drama-free. No pushed updates, no annoying popups from Microsoft, no crashes in years.

You run Windows 2000. XP is tied to the mothership in Redmond. With Vista, Microsoft runs you.

Re:Downgrade?

XP is smaller, faster, less buggy, and doesn't come encumbered with a ton of DRM crap. How is that a "downgrade"?

Re:Downgrade?

and doesn't come encumbered with a ton of DRM crap

its all relative, isn't it?

compare win2k that had NO activation and you could copy the system disk from one box to another and it would work fine (if the hardware/kernel were compatible).

I am forced to use an acronis (or similar) tool to dupe my system disk. that hurdle should NOT exist but XP sure does like to stop you doing things you need to, at the system level.

not to mention activation, which kept a lot of people OFF xp and made win2k the last 'great' os from MS.

the only useful xp is a corp edition (non activation), sp2, pre-WGA. all others are bolloxed-up. (fwiw, at least SP3 on xp didn't turn on WGA on the corp version I tested it with. so a corp SP2 with SP3 update still seems 'mostly safe' to use).

Re:Downgrade?

If it's a "Downgrade", shouldn't it be *CHEAPER*?????

It's a "downgrade" only because Microsoft wants to preserve the illusion that Vista is better, and the pricing is set to discourage people from buying it.

But, yes... a significant share of the consumer market, and practically *all* of the informed market, consider XP a vastly improved upgrade [dotnet.org.za] over Vista.

I've been using Microsoft OSes since MS-DOS 3.2 (circa 1988), and I've never been nearly as frustrated, disappointed, and often outraged by an OS as I am with Vista. I've been using it for two months, and it's horrid in many, many aspects.

I have been making a list of irritations that are novel to Vista. Every time I run across some new irritant, I pop open this text file and add a line to it. I am also making a list of Vista features that I have turned off because they are buggy, poorly implemented, resource hogs, unsecure, frustrating to use, etc., etc. They are both very long lists, and they continue to grow.

Re:$50 for assurance of less headache ?

Then how much would you pay for Ubuntu, which causes even fewer headaches than Windows XP as long as GNU/Linux supports your hardware?

Why, nothing of course. :)

Re:$50 for assurance of less headache ?

Then how much would you pay for Ubuntu, which causes even fewer headaches than Windows XP as long as GNU/Linux supports your hardware?

...as much free tech support for it (Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, really) as my friends and relatives can stand.

...time and effort in teaching others (including random strangers) how to use it if they ask.

...time and effort in explaining in detail how I manage to get neat stuff to happen on it (e.g. getting the Windows version of the 3D app Poser to work in OpenSuSE).

...any and all code modifications that I make to customize and/or bugfix any open-source component of it - even if I don't distribute the binaries or project source code myself.

(there are many more ways, but yeah - it's worth paying-back that way, if not in other ways as well).

/P

Re:Wasting money

How bad is Vista? Well that depends. The UAC does break a good amount of software that works just fine on XP.
Also the journal playback doesn't work with the UAC turned on. It was a security issue but it is also how some programs did simple macros and allowed you to create applications that pushed text into other windows apps.
Also the USB system seems to have some bugs in it.
Also the sound system can be really odd at times. Some computers produce really crappy sound if you record at less than 16 bit 22 khz stereo. That shouldn't be an issue for just recording voice.
It does use more disk space and memory than XP.
It is also different and often it seems like it is different not to be better but to just be different.
So as you have put it if you turn off all the extras then it isn't that bad.
But if you turn off all the extras is it any better than XP?
That is what makes Vista so bad. It really is a lot to some pain for little to no gain.
XP works as well as Vista, uses less resources, and everybody knows most of it's quirks and problems. I feel that Vista is a case of not worth it. And what I find shocking is that most of the normal users out there feel the same way.
 

Re:Wasting money

So the question is, from what I understand, if you turn off all the extras, Vista is not that bad. I don't suppose I can get an unbiased assessment on slashdot, though. Is it really that buggy? More than XP?

There are a handful of people here on Slashdot who actually like Vista and admit it. I'm one of them.

I haven't turned off any of the extras. Regarding the eye candy, they did an awesome job. It's a slick looking user interface. Regarding performance, it runs beautifully on my Acer laptop (1.6 GHz dual core, 2 GB RAM, GeForce Go7300).

The biggest annoyance for me is the automatic horizontal scrolling in the folder pane of Windows Explorer. I absolutely hate it and want to turn it off, but there is no option.

I've only encountered two actual bugs, and they were both extremely minor. One of them I only encountered once, and can't actually remember what it is right now. The other is just a small bug that occurs when you create a new folder and then try to rename it too quickly.

Overall, I'm happy with it.

Re:Wasting money

We had the same type and level of whining when switching from 2000 to XP, or from 98SE to 2000. Anyone here want to go back to either of those two?

"go back"? I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to upgrade from 2K to XP. Seriously.