"Our volume-license customers can always downgrade to any previous version of Windows"
Does that mean that if I buy enough licenses, I can downgrade all the way Windows 3.1?
Microsoft has agreed to allow Windows 7 customers to downgrade not just to Vista but also to XP. The software firm confirmed it had planned downgrade rights for XP when Windows 7 shipped, which is expected later this year. "Microsoft will be offering an n-2 downgrade option with Windows 7 to help customers plan their …
Unless I'm wrong then what they're saying is this "We know it's shit and we don't care. We're going to release it anyway and when you find out that it's shit you'll also find that you've just shelled out for a duplicate XP license".
Then when they get the bugs removed (ha ha ha like that's ever happened with MS software) they'll revoke the XP and Vista downgrade licenses and say "Now you have to use Win7 with SP1".
Fuck it. I'm never going back to Winblows. It sucked when I first used it. It sucked through the entire time I had it at home and it sucks when I use it at work. This admission from Redmond that they know their software is no up to the minimum release standards that other companise set themselves is rather telling.
...and if I really feel the need to run any dodgy malware then I'll install Wine.
Perhaps the public perception of the OS following screenshots showing a very similar UI to Vista and media reports of increased DRM plus a dodgy attempt to fix UAC (i.e. internally looking suspiciously like Win 6.1 dressed up as a major release) has finally reached the perception of Microsoft's marketing department...
Although it wouldn't surprise me if once Win 7 is released, most new and upgraded releases of software from MS will state they're only suitable for Vista and higher...
Microsoft has said: "We do not give a damn what people want. They will have to pay for Windows 7, even if they have no intention of ever using it, and would prefer something cheaper instead. In fact, if they want any Microsoft operating system except Windows 7, they have to pay for the most expensive version of Windows 7 we license. This is because older Microsoft operating systems are far more valuable to customers than the new ones and we need some excuse to say people want Windows 7."
If people swallow this, "Windows 8" require twice as much hardware to run half the speed of W7, but the $1000 version will let you upgrade to XP.
Boy, you do know you are selling some bad stuff if you advertise the ability to take older products instead. Anything to get your money. And, no doubt, all these downgrades count as Windows 7 sales.
Of course you can do the same with Linux. You just do not have to pay a bunch of money.
Based on the usability and stability of the beta, unless Microsoft find a way to epic fail between now and launch-day, I'm looking forward to letting customers loose on it, after the traditional launch + six months for any major show-stoppers to be found.
Sounds a good way of keeping reasonable people happy - Give them a choice of XP, Vista or 7, and let them upgrade at their own pace. And as a bonus, any who pick vista can be added to the watch list, as clearly they're some issues there...
*Wonders if he can go through to Windows 7 stable launch with only the 3 vista PC's he's shipped in the last two years*
Don't joke about 3.1
I remember using it happily for support, programming in Progress 4GL and connecting to all types of Unix boxes and it worked fine.
On top of that - the whole C: drive could be backed up to a network or another HDD and it could then be restored to a new drive which had been formatted as bootable. (Especially useful when you'd been on holiday and your boss had trashed your machine whilst you were away!)
If you only needed to run dos apps then you could and we had whole bakeries running on a 4GL application. Dosshell was loved by many of our clients as it was so easy and simple to use.
Also, as all configuration was in .ini files you could relatively easily keep a close track of them and we had tools which kept snapshots and so we could easily see what installing an application had done and revert chages if needed.
Then came Win95 and the dreaded registry - now we had crashing, and bizarre problems and our terminal apps stopped working and we're were dragged into the age of - use it for a bit, it will fail over time in all kinds of infuriating ways, then reinstall.
The only shame is that now due to hardware prices the reinstall has turned into 'buy another' and so MS gain even more money as a reward for failure.
They don't even do it now for Vista. I have tried several times to get Microsoft to give me the XP code for proper activation after downgrading and they WON'T do it. They offered to do it for a fee of $60.00 once. Here's what Microsoft says they WILL do (but won't).
"When an end user is using their downgrade
rights offered under the License Terms in
Windows Vista Business and Ultimate versions
and they use both Windows XP media and a
product key that was previously activated, they
will be unable to activate on-line over the
Internet, due to the hardware conﬁguration
change when installing on the Vista system. In
these cases the end user will be prompted to
call the Activation Support Line and explain
their circumstances to the Customer Service
Representative. Once it is determined that the
end user has a valid Vista Business or Ultimate
license, the Customer Service Representative will
help them activate their software."
Here's the full pdf of what Microsoft says your downgrade rights are (but they ignore it).
Microsoft's response to allegations that Vista sucks has been to try and redefine English rather than actually fix the software.
The word "Upgrade" actually means a move that improves the general situation, such as adding extra functionality or usability. It absolutely does NOT, and never has meant just a move to something more recent regardless how bad it is.
Since XP, Microsoft have added many artificial limitations to Windows to prevent the user from accessing the hardware features of their own PC. Extra limitations like DRM and other "in your face" annoyances like UAC prevent the user from doing things that can actually be done straightforwardly in XP.
Consequently, moving TO Vista or Windows 7 FROM XP is clearly and logically a DOWNGRADE.
Moving FROM Vista/Windows 7 To XP is consequently an UPGRADE.
In future please use this correct terminology in all your articles.
Windows 1, 2 & 3 were rubbish! Windows 95 was almost OK. XP is OK. The only reason M$ are changing the O/S is to make more money. At work (BT) there is a PC that has been turned on since 1993 & still running! My brand new (BT) laptop has a Vista logo on the top but only boot's to XP. So even BT feels that Vista is nasty!
A few months ago Dell was offering the downgrade option for $100 MORE than a straight Vista installation. The gimmick is "upgrade at your own pace". and they sold the machine with XP installed, but included a Vista upgrade disc, that you could "install when you are ready"?!
I imagine the Windows 7 downgrade offer will work similarly.
... that our customer base is demanding to down grade to our OS from 7 YEARS AGO. Well done M$, with product release diagrams like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/XP-Editions.svg/470px-XP-Editions.svg.png
it's hardly a surprise you're fucked.
What a sales pitch! "We have this new and improved O/S called Windows 7. You really should buy it. In fact we won't allow you to buy anything else. But if after you've bought it you prefer to go back to XP we'll allow you to do that." And I wonder how much the downgrade will cost me?
Mine's the straight-jacket.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am going to have to either fork out for a Doze Vista 7 license and upgrade this thing soon (I wonder if the hardware is even compatible?) or go Linux. Which means no printer*, no VPN**, no idea if my recorded movies will still play and no idea if Myth is even half as good as Media Center.
* I could buy a new one I guess, but I don't have £200+ spare and even then it would be a shitty black and white job, no scanner etc as Linux seems to have terrible printer support. Or am I wrong?
** Work's VPN software is not Linux compatible. Well OK, they'll support RedHat 7 or something (thank you CheckPoint, you gits)
I just got my first Windows XP machine last week, and they're discontinuing it next week?! Back to Linux all round for me then.
Seriously, why don't they just switch to free support for the 'old, boring' version when they introduce the trivial respray to sell to the morons? Some people are trying to do some work here.
I actually got to play with a windows 2.0 machine once. Made everything else from them look stable by comparison.
Gotta admit i'm now a die hard linux fan. Why? The one thing that will never work with windows, "AUTOMATION".
Do something once and dump your history. Next time you'll have 1/2 of it scripted up. After doing a task 4-5 times you should have it well automated. MS+IBM home of the GUI (great useless inconvenience)
Have any of the "I hate Vista" people ever actually USED a legitimate copy of Vista for any length of time? UAC only comes up when you're installing an app (oh noes, one more click!!!), runs far more stably than XP ever did (I've never had Vista crash) and, being a techy sort of guy, I do have sufficiently capable hardware to run the damn thing in the first place.
I wonder how many people who slate Vista have derived their entire experience from a downloaded beta or pirate copy?
Keep your XP, I UPgraded to Vista a couple of years ago now. :)
Volume licence customers with active SA (cringe) have always had the ability to downgrade to previous versions along the product path, even NT 3.51 if your heart desires. I'm just slightly surprised Microsoft haven't decided to enforce customers in the OEM channel to take out SA so they could still run XP - they are tw@ts after all.
Paris because she knows how to stiff people for money
Did you try the Vista beta? I did. It seemed a darn site better than the RTM version. And UAC isn't "just one more click during installation" is it. It is several extra clicks when doing simple system tasks on a daily basis. UAC also locks the desktop so you have to clear it AND new windows STILL steal focus. Admit it, it's a shower of shit.
Linux fan asking about printers, if it's Apple compatible it'll probably work on linux as apple. Urrently own CUPS. Ignore the shills on here! Check teh interwebs. (iPhone wants to change shills to shits - now tell me it's a rubbish phone!)
As someone who has the benefit of using both Windows 2000 and XP side by side since many years I have to tell you: 5.0 is STILL the BEST Microsoft OS. Lean, stable and fast with none of the disgusting "eye-candy" or frustrating "hand holding" of 5.1. I realise I risk being ridiculed and flamed to a crisp for this but there you have it - and I'm not even going to comment on Vista.
"I seriously doubt that anyone who's used Windows 7, even in its current beta form, will want to downgrade to XP - it's shaping up to be a very good OS."
Depends on where it is deployed and what "goodies" are going to remain on the final release version. W7 is supposed to be slimmer than Vista, which is to the good, but one of the biggest reasons for hanging on to XP is that Vista was too bloated and power hungry to sit on the lower spec machines such as netbooks. If V7 can sit on these machines with no problem in whatever form is likely to be released for the purpose, then XP may start to die off.
As for how it is shaping up, my concern is more along the lines of what the marketing plebes will insist on shoving into it. Left to its own devices, W7 does appear to be an improvement on Vista, though I'm not convinced that it beats XP as yet. And, lest we forget, we still have this stupid arrangement of so many release versions to bug the crap out of everyone.
What shocks me is how so many of you can slate a product that isn't even finished yet. I've been running Windows7 on my laptop since Christmas, so far it looks promising. Generally the feedback from other people has been good.
To those of you that bitch about Vista being slower, well of course it is, but if you run Vista on decent hardware in 7years time you won't have anything to complain about. When Windows XP arrived it run well on anything from 800mhz and 64MB RAM and above. People bitched at the time because it was slow on their 400Mhz and 32MB machines. Now 2-3Ghz Dual Core and 2GB RAM is common.
I think we call it progress in the IT Industry. Hardware gets faster, so the software takes advantage of it.
If we only cared about speed then the command line OS would still rule.
on here, all slagging off an os that's still in beta! Have any of you seriously tried 7? I'm "only" interested in computers as a hobby but having three desktops running XP Pro and 2000 Pro, laptop running Vista Ultimate ( all legal-Technet) and one running 7 Ultimate plus a couple of lappys running Linux Mint and Fedora I find myself really shocked at this my OS is better than yours crap! As already stated by another, 7 is shaping up to be the best OS from MS yet. Faster and a lot more stable than Vista with UAC easily turned off, far more functionality than XP and a lot easier to use than any flavour of Linux I can't wait until it's officially released.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022