Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


XP downgrades are just plain dumb

Recently a friend of mine went out to buy a PC. Normally he would have just taken the "Windows" that came on the machine and walked out. But with all of the broughaha over Vista he wanted to know: Should I buy XP instead?

So it's come to this: Biases in the tech community are starting to affect consumer behavior. Ok, so there are things about Vista that people don't like. But is it so bad that we should be recommending that consumers downgrade to a seven year old operating system?

Now the latest broughaha is over Intel's decision not to move its own PCs to Vista. Yes, Vista has been a marketing disaster for Microsoft. And the verdict on Vista in business is in question, judging by what these IT professionals say. But consumers shouldn't get caught up in the hype when making a personal decision on the right technology choice for a new Windows PC.

What is it about Windows Vista that gets people so cranked up? We have become obsessed with XP to the point where Microsoft's sliding retirement schedule for the aging OS has become almost a past time (Witness XP Deathwatch). Vendors have been offering an XP downgrade option for months. Now with Microsoft's attempt to push people beyond Vista it will cost money to do so. That's a good idea.

It makes no sense for consumers to be buying XP on new systems designed to run Vista. By the time those systems are retired they'll be working on a functionally obsolete operating system that's at least ten years old.

Related Blog:

Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols: Using Vista instead of XP is dumb

Vista is the 1985 Yugo GV of Windows operating systems. Here's why. [read more]

For its part, Microsoft needs to stop being so wishy-washy and stand firm on phasing out XP. Slow enterprise adoption may mandate extension of support (security patches and updates) through 2014, but there’s no reason to keep consumers on outdated technology. If users don't like Vista they can certainly buy a Mac. But most people shouldn’t be buying XP with new systems if they're buying a Windows computer. Period.

Everything consumers need to know about the Vista decision they can find in three Computerworld articles. Here's what's not to like about Vista. Here's what you'll like about it. And here's the full review of Vista.

So what did the reviewers say? Here's the bottom line from Preston Gralla: “…forget the wouldas, shouldas and couldas. Windows Vista is a far better operating system than Windows XP.” As for reviewer and Computerworld EIC Scot Finnie: “Is Vista an excellent version of Windows? Yes. It's better than XP.” [SEE EDITOR'S NOTE BELOW]. What's changed since then, other than a lot of bad marketing? Nothing.

Finnie and Gralla have their quibbles - and Finnie ended up moving to the Mac - but I suspect that even today, neither would advocate downgrading from Vista to XP on a new machine.

Vista owners can find plenty of resources for hammering Vista into a very usable and customized form. Check out The Ultimate Tweaker’s Guide to Windows, Five Ways to Bend Windows Vista to Your Will and Top 10 Vista Hacks.

Downgrade to XP on that new machine? Don't be a sucker. If you want a Windows PC get Vista. If you don't like it go to Linux or the Mac. But don't buy XP.

EDITOR'S NOTE:

After this posting, Computerworld editor in chief Scot Finnie weighed in to clarify his position on choosing between Vista and XP.

"I do think that at its core the Vista kernel is better than XP's. But I also wrote [in the same review]: 'I'm so unsure that I like Vista's trade-offs, like User Account Control and Software Protection Platform, that I'm giving the Mac equal opportunity to become my next OS.'

And the Mac won the war." (See Windows Expert to Redmond: Buh-bye).

As for choosing betweeen Vista and XP, today, Finnie falls firmly into the XP camp. In his blog post, Windows XP or Vista, he talks about his decision to consolidate his Vista installations from five machines to two, one of which runs dual-boot with XP.

From the posting: "Windows XP is a mature operating system that's not trying to be something that it's not. The user experience is better than Vista's."

What People Are Saying

Robert is right. XP

Robert is right. XP downgrades are just plain dumb. However, anyone using vista is even dumber. Using vista on the latest hardware is like buying a Ferarri and installing a Fiat 500 engine in it. If I have the latest hardware, I wanna be flying with it, so its either XP or linux and I do not consider them as downgrades. Only vista falls in this category.

Vista vs. XP

The guy did not give any practical reasons why people should buy Vista. All he said was buy it because its newer. That is not a reason to buy anything unless you have money to waste.

Looks Like Robert DOES need a Reality Check of his own

Robert, just looking at all the XP pro posts, I think you need the reality check, not us. We like XP for a reason - IT WORKS! No matter how old it is. Yes, I did order a new laptop for work, it came with Vista - I now have XP installed on it. nuf said. :)

I find it funny to read

I find it funny to read Vista user saying that XP is an old OS passed out...

we use our computer as a tool. The problem we have with Vista is too unstable for so many industrial application, we have no choice to install XP on PCs. The industrial software programmer are trying hard to fixed bugs on Vista but when stability is more important than money in the business, you need a OS that will be stable.

Also, Vista is user friendly for my grandmother but for us, configuring the PC for our needs is just longer process witch is a lost of time in our business.

I don't care about 3D and what I what on my Core2Duo 4gig is a faster PC while running several application, like 8 to 12 at the same time. With Vista, it is just bad that a quarter is used to run. I but a fully loaded Dell laptop with Vista. After 5 months, I just tryed to install XP. But XP does not have all the harddrive drivers so I was hard work and finally, my PC is the BOMB on XP.

Yes, Vista is booting faster, and it is a good thing when it crashed so often...

Robert, Have you ever done a

Robert,
Have you ever done a little thing called gaming?
I didn't think so. It's quite big with the kids.
You'll hear all this garbage about Vista being better than XP and all the what-not, but the truth is, if you're a gamer, XP is the only way to go. Vista reduces your frame rates by 20% with no real image quality gains.
Some may say it's a trade off for better security and all that garbage (Funny, I never had any security issues with XP) but the plain truth is that Vista is SLOW!
Crysis is unplayable in Vista but smooth like butter in XP. Same thing with Assassin's Creed, runs great in XP but chugs along in Vista... and that's with a 9800GTX!

I have a Vista disc and every now and then I install it to see how well it's coming along and every time I format and reinstall XP.

If you want eye candy, go for OsX. If you want usability, go XP. If you want headaches and slow performance, go Vista.

Vista OK If...

Vista is fine if you have new hardware, new applications, and no need for legacy stuff. If you're buying a new, high-powered system, Vista makes sense, provided you won't need to use old peripherals and old applications. I'm using Vista Ultimate (on occasion), and it runs quite well. Mind you, I turned off the Indexing services and UAC and log in as administrator, thereby defeating the built-in search and security measures. I did the same under XP. I'm not saying people should buy Vista because it's so great full of eye candy. I'm only saying that if you use it the way you use XP (as a local admin, with no UAC and no indexing), and you have a new system, then it works fine.

Vista good and bad

Vista has some good things in it but from my experience, it performs poorly. What customers want is something that works so they can get done what they need to do.

I attended a Microsoft "There be Heros here" 2008 early adopter launch event earlier this year and I like what I heard about the integration between Vista and 2008 products. The new security model for Vista, etc. I liked what I heard of the intent of the Vista product. They failed to deliver a product that worked for the consumer.

I bought a Dell notebook with Vista on it about 9 months ago. I purchased DSL for the home. During the DSL registration process, which is web based, IE kept timing out. Each time I restarted the registation process, it would get a little further in the registration process. Finally, I had to call support with the DSL service to use a different method to register. When something simple like web browsing results in timeouts, something is definitely wrong.

Next I installed, Office 2003 Pro and tried to connect to the corporate exchange server. No luck on getting it to download my mail box. Corporate helpdesk indicated I needed to try Office 2005 (or 2007, can't remember). Also no luck.

I couldn't wait on 6 months or more on SP1 vaporware on only the possibility that it would fix the problem. I back leveled to XP and web browsing is fine. Office & Exchange are fine.

Just needed something that worked reliably.

XP is beautiful on a WUXGA Samsung Monitor

I recently bought a Samsung T260 WUXGA monitor and hooked it up to my P4 3GHz / Matrox G450 eTV / XP Pro computer. After some tweaking Win XP in Classic Mode Plum (yes Classic Mode!) looks fabulous with large icons and is really zippy. I could make XP look like Vista with all its transparencies, but hate that sort of bling. What does Vista offer me that XP doesn't? After using Vista on my HP laptop (Dual Core 1.6GHz / 2GB / Vista Home Premium) for almost 6 months, I wiped Vista and installed XP Pro SP2 with Launchy (freeware: for quick searching & lauching). I just hated Vista's slowness and quirks. For me Vista offers no advantages over XP, except a lot of pain.

You need an M$ exorcism...

Designed to run Vista? I'd like to see one piece of hardware "designed to run Vista". You either don't know what you're talking about or you've been possessed by Micro$atan Demons.

Vista better?

Better for whom and for what purpose? For Microsoft and their bottom line? For self appointed "advisers" for we mere mortals. How about better for the people who BUY the computers and software?

If XP does what you need to do the way you need to do it on hardware that makes sense to you, why "upgrade" to Vista? Especially since it breaks many XP applications, does things differently just to be different, requires massively new hardware and must be hammered into shape to perform as well as XP. That does not look like better to and for me.