Topic: Windows users will be allowed to downgrade to XP from Win7, skip Vista

[Rod ONeal]

I found this interesting.

http://www.guru3d.com/news/windows-users-will-be-allowed-to-downgrade-to-xp-from-win7-skip-vista/

Windows users will be allowed to downgrade to XP from Win7, skip Vista
By Hilbert Hagedoorn, April 7, 2009 - 8:03 PM


 

Windows XP is a solid operating system, if a bit outdated. The Windows 7 Beta has been promising, and is a definite improvement in both speed and stability over Windows Vista. However, some people might not share my warm feelings towards Microsoft’s latest OS, and would prefer that their new computers have XP preinstalled, or have the capability to install XP over Windows 7.  It has been confirmed that users can do this without having to deal with Vista at all.

According to BetaNews, a Microsoft spokesperson came out and stated that users will be able to downgrade from Windows 7 to XP without a problem.  This comes after the news that Microsoft would continue to support XP through at least June 2010.  Users of Windows 7 may skip Vista entirely when downgrading.

XP is being kept on by Microsoft as the OS of choice for Ultra-Low-Cost-Portables (netbooks), though Windows 7 is fully capable of running on these sometimes underpowered machines. It is unclear if users who purchase netbooks with XP will be offered incentives to upgrade to Windows 7 [via betanews].

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yep, killer OS that Vista (not!). I really hope that Windows 7 is better. I don't want to have to keep using an old OS as more newer capabilities and software come along.

[Nemesis]

The fact that Microsoft has to extend the life of older Operating Systems (repeatedly) says to me that they know they are not delivering what their customers want and that Microsoft knows that the customer can leave them now, even if most customers don't yet know they can leave.  I wonder how long before they are compelled to extend the life of MS-Office the same way?

[toasty0]

Vista Rocks! 

Actually I'm getting a kick out of Win7.

[Nemesis]

Vista Rocks! 

Some agree but the market acceptance has been poor.

[toasty0]

Vista Rocks! 

Some agree but the market acceptance has been poor.

I know. Vista ran into the same brick wall that Ubuntu and other Linux based desktop distros have run into: change and too large a learning arc for IT wonks and consumers alike.

[Nemesis]

I know. Vista ran into the same brick wall that Ubuntu and other Linux based desktop distros have run into: change and too large a learning arc for IT wonks and consumers alike.

From what I've read it couldn't be used on low to mid level hardware at a satisfactory performance when released. 

Also there is the DRM issue.  Vista is much more loaded with built in DRM and more people are getting bitten by it.

[Dash Jones]

Vista Rocks! 

Some agree but the market acceptance has been poor.

I know. Vista ran into the same brick wall that Ubuntu and other Linux based desktop distros have run into: change and too large a learning arc for IT wonks and consumers alike.

It also probably is that it has a LOT OF NON-COMPATIBILITY issues.  If it were compatible with all my games and applications...I'd have transferred to Vista...BUT it didn't...so I didn't transfer over to it.

My hope is that Win 7 is a LOT MORE friendly to the user base than Vista was.  Vista seemed like trying to FORCE change upon everyone for the sake of change and money/greed rather than for any good reason.

Change for the sake of change isn't always veiwed favorably, especially when it runs like @#$% on machines that state they are supposed to be able to run it.

[Wraith 413]

 Our unit recently migrated to Office 2007. OMG , I dread using Office 2007 as it has noticeably slowed down our computers. Next up is a Vista migration by year's end.(Currently using XP)
 I'd say about 1/3 of our computers will not be able to handle Vista and Office 2007 together.

 I have Win7 and XP (dual boot) on this computer at home and I'm liking Win7 so far. I still prefer Office 2003 at this time however.

[Greenvalv]

I've renamed vista in my Grub boot menu to "Windblows: Polished Turd Edition"... that's pretty much all it is...

[Nemesis]

What we're really after is simply that people acquire a legal license for Windows for each computer they own before they move on to Linux or Sun Solaris or BSD or OS/2 or whatever. - William Gates III

Since when has the world of computer software design been about what people want? This is a simple question of evolution. The day is quickly coming when every knee will bow down to a silicon fist, and you will all beg your binary gods for mercy. - William Gates III

Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a Spider Monkey. - William Gates III

[Pestalence_XC]

Our unit recently migrated to Office 2007. OMG , I dread using Office 2007 as it has noticeably slowed down our computers. Next up is a Vista migration by year's end.(Currently using XP)
 I'd say about 1/3 of our computers will not be able to handle Vista and Office 2007 together.

 I have Win7 and XP (dual boot) on this computer at home and I'm liking Win7 so far. I still prefer Office 2003 at this time however.

I found just the opposite..

If your computers has a Core 2 or better and 2 to 4 GB system memory, I found Office 2007 with all updates, combined with Microsoft Works v9.. Office works much faster and is easier to use than it 2003 predecessor.. I use Office 2K7 constantly.. it is much improved over Office2K3.. and I used that old software a lot as well.

I use Microsoft Works as a launching portal for Office since all the Office programs from the Enterprise Edition will embed into the Works launcher by default.. so I have quick access to Outlook, Excel, Power Point, Etc all from one GUI, plus the extras that Works offers for the home, like Grocery lists, to do lists, basic budgeting, cards, etc.

Anyhow.. guess my experiences with the software is a bit different from yours.. I have never run software on old computers.. at least not on computers more than 4 years old... If the system was built in 2K3, and your bar buying software in 2K7.. more than likely, you need a major upgrade to your systems or just replace the computer with a new model..

I know in the business environment it is a pain in the arse, but systems have to keep up with the software and vice versa.

[Wraith 413]

 The hardware we have is old and outdated. My work computer (2005 model) has a Pent.4 with like 1mb of ram . On my computer at home, I have no problems with Win7 or Office 2007.  As far as my personal dislike of Office 2007, it mostly has to do with still getting to know where things are placed on the toolbars and menus as opposed to Office 2003.  Mostly unfamiliarity, but for most of my simple needs, Office 2007 is overkill.

[Nemesis]

If your computers has a Core 2 or better and 2 to 4 GB system memory, I found Office 2007 with all updates, combined with Microsoft Works v9.. Office works much faster and is easier to use than it 2003 predecessor.. I use Office 2K7 constantly.. it is much improved over Office2K3.. and I used that old software a lot as well.

I'm not an MS Office user but what is the great improvement that makes it necessary to accept scrapping computers that happily ran the last version?  Why does the new version have such high requirements compared to the last? 

[toasty0]

If your computers has a Core 2 or better and 2 to 4 GB system memory, I found Office 2007 with all updates, combined with Microsoft Works v9.. Office works much faster and is easier to use than it 2003 predecessor.. I use Office 2K7 constantly.. it is much improved over Office2K3.. and I used that old software a lot as well.

I'm not an MS Office user but what is the great improvement that makes it necessary to accept scrapping computers that happily ran the last version?  Why does the new version have such high requirements compared to the last?

First, and having nothing to do with OSs or other software requirements, older machines should be scrapped. The HDDs as well as other hardware architecture components are inefficient compared to their newer counterpart , to say the least.

[Nemesis]

First, and having nothing to do with OSs or other software requirements, older machines should be scrapped. The HDDs as well as other hardware architecture components are inefficient compared to their newer counterpart , to say the least.

In a word NO.

So long as the equipment works and does the job there is no reason to scrap it.  The company I worked for used a spectrometer controlled by a Windows 3.1 machine for years after XP was out and only when the computer itself died moved it to a Windows 98 machine.  The machine WORKED it did everything that was needed of it so why replace it and the much more expensive equipment it controlled (no drivers for anything later than XP)?

Replace a computer because it has failed or cannot do the job you use it for.  Not because newer computers are faster and more powerful.  Speed often does nothing for you except waste electricity and the money to purchase that faster machine .

[toasty0]

First, and having nothing to do with OSs or other software requirements, older machines should be scrapped. The HDDs as well as other hardware architecture components are inefficient compared to their newer counterpart , to say the least.

In a word NO.

So long as the equipment works and does the job there is no reason to scrap it.  The company I worked for used a spectrometer controlled by a Windows 3.1 machine for years after XP was out and only when the computer itself died moved it to a Windows 98 machine.  The machine WORKED it did everything that was needed of it so why replace it and the much more expensive equipment it controlled (no drivers for anything later than XP)?

Replace a computer because it has failed or cannot do the job you use it for.  Not because newer computers are faster and more powerful.  Speed often does nothing for you except waste electricity and the money to purchase that faster machine .

I'm not sure why you're quibbling here Nem. If it works, fine, then don't upgrade. I just see why you're so gosh darn sure you have to keep old equipment and forego upgrading to newer, more efficient methodologies and or harware?

Look, it is like this, if you thinnk a train gets you there in the time and manner you wish to travel and arrive, then take the train. If I or others feel we'd rather try the latest transporter technologies then what's the beef?

[Nemesis]

I'm not sure why you're quibbling here Nem. If it works, fine, then don't upgrade. I just see why you're so gosh darn sure you have to keep old equipment and forego upgrading to newer, more efficient methodologies and or harware?

Look, it is like this, if you thinnk a train gets you there in the time and manner you wish to travel and arrive, then take the train. If I or others feel we'd rather try the latest transporter technologies then what's the beef?

Your blanket statement:

older machines should be scrapped.

Being old is not reason to scrap it.  Not doing what is requireed or desired would be.

[Pestalence_XC]

Being old is not reason to scrap it.  Not doing what is requireed or desired would be.

Exactly Nemesis.. Office 2007 requires a better performing machine.. not an outdated one..

Most of your programs coming out today require Core 2 processors or better, many graphics based software are starting to require SLI x3 in order to get full graphic capabilities.. many more programs are starting to require 4GB ram or more..

Age of Conan for example.. works best on a maching running 2 vid cards in SLI with 1.5 GB video memory per card.. preferably the GTX 295 series for the fast graphics processing.. 8 GB DDR3 memory and an i7 quad core  CPU running off the 980 Intel chipset at 3.6 Ghz...

However you can play the game with Med to med. High settings and Direct X 10 using 1 NVidia 8800 GTX with 512 MB memroy or better, a Core 2 Duo running at 2.4 GHz and 2 GB system memory.. but expect low fps and expect some latency if you are using an integrated ethernet card.. the CPU just can't handle it all.

With Office 2K7, the program is Multi-Threaded and Optimized for 2 or more processors.. thus works best when running it with a Pentium Dual Core (which only lasted about 6 months on market) or the Core 2 series CPUs that have either 2 or 4 CPUs in 1 die..

Software is being designed to take advantage of the innovations of hardware, and in some cases like Age of Conan, it is being designed to work on Modern systems build within the last 2 years or so with the outlook of having to allow it to run on systems 10x better than what is on the market today.. so their game is extremely demanding on hardware and specifications.

Now if I was an old company that has no vision of the future and likes to work at turtle or snails pace.. the yes, I would keep a Windows 3.1 or 95 /98 machine going to take care of my business.. or if I want precision, and to be able to increase the speed and effeciency of my company, I could update my equipment to something that offers me more independance, flexability, speed, stability, and have the capabiolity of doing more than 1 project at a time.

Imagine your work Win 98 PC.. it can do what, 1 at a time?, with a Quad Core system with 4 independant processors. you can be doing 4 at a time... your productivity just quadrupled..

Which is why older systems are scrapped out, and the parts melted down as much as possible and recycled into new components...

If we are talking about people, I agree, You don't thow out because its old.. but looking at Technology.. Old is not better, it is just Much, Much slower and incapable of performing as well as a newer piece of Tech..

Like ToastyO stated.. it is like comparing a steam engine train to the bullet train.. I get on 1 train, you get on the other.. we are both leaving from the same place to get to the same destination 400 miles away.. I should arrive there many, many hours ahead of you because the technology allows me to travel at 200 Mph compared to the 60 Mph tech you are using. Sure you get to see more of the scenery on the way, but think of all the productivity time lost. Because I used newer tech to travel, I saved 3 hours and 40 min.. thus more time for me to be productive.

Just something for you to think about.

[Wraith 413]

 It's a never ending cycle, a paradox one might say. You get faster hardware that runs currently available apps great. Then the apps get updated and then your hardware isn't so fast anymore. Such goes the circle of electrons.

[Nemesis]

Exactly Nemesis.. Office 2007 requires a better performing machine.. not an outdated one..

Most of your programs coming out today require Core 2 processors or better, many graphics based software are starting to require SLI x3 in order to get full graphic capabilities.. many more programs are starting to require 4GB ram or more..

What does Office 2007 do that a TYPICAL user would find an advantage over the last version?  An advantage worth the cost of replacing your whole system to get?

I think that it has long passed the time where MS is adding Bells and Whistles and calliopes to the program just to sell new versions.  I have yet to hear of something that a typical user would find as a useful new function.

Note an interface change is not a new function.

With Office 2K7, the program is Multi-Threaded and Optimized for 2 or more processors.. thus works best when running it with a Pentium Dual Core (which only lasted about 6 months on market) or the Core 2 series CPUs that have either 2 or 4 CPUs in 1 die..

If the old version of Office does everything you need what purpose does upgrading to the new one serve to you the customer?  What makes it worth buying a whole new powerful computer, a new Windows and a new Office suite when a less powerful system with the old software does all you need at equal speed?

Now if I was an old company that has no vision of the future and likes to work at turtle or snails pace.. the yes, I would keep a Windows 3.1 or 95 /98 machine going to take care of my business.. or if I want precision, and to be able to increase the speed and effeciency of my company, I could update my equipment to something that offers me more independance, flexability, speed, stability, and have the capabiolity of doing more than 1 project at a time.

Office 2007 lets a secretary type how many more words a minute?

Like ToastyO stated.. it is like comparing a steam engine train to the bullet train.. I get on 1 train, you get on the other.. we are both leaving from the same place to get to the same destination 400 miles away.. I should arrive there many, many hours ahead of you because the technology allows me to travel at 200 Mph compared to the 60 Mph tech you are using. Sure you get to see more of the scenery on the way, but think of all the productivity time lost. Because I used newer tech to travel, I saved 3 hours and 40 min.. thus more time for me to be productive.

Just something for you to think about.

For a select few who use high end software upgrading makes sense but that goes with what I said in any case.

Being old is not reason to scrap it.  Not doing what is required or desired would be.

Unless the new software and new hardware does something that you NEED upgrading it is pointless and a waste of time and money.

I'm not against upgrading when the upgrade is useful.  I built myself dual processor machines years ago.  I'm posting from a 2 year old dual core machine right now. 

An engineer who will have his drawing refresh in half the time?  Sure, buy him that new machine.  A database server that will run faster and leave less wait time for the end user?  Great. 

A new version of your existing software that does nothing to improve cost effectiveness and requires a massive hardware upgrade?