Windows 7 Will Allow Downgrades Too

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Even though people are raving about Windows 7, there are still going to be some of you that want to stick with their old OS once Windows 7 hits the market. That is why Microsoft will be allowing downgrades for customers that wish to stick with XP or Vista.

Microsoft is actually expanding that Vista downgrade rights program slightly, the company confirmed on Monday. Under the new program, PC makers will be able to ship pre-downgraded machines based on anticipated demand for those systems.
Click to expand...
 
I know that some people really like XP, but COME ON. Get with the times already. MS shouldn't have to keep supporting an 8 year old operating system.

When have they ever done this before? Never, that I can recall.
 
I'm sorta curious how many CD-Key's they can actually generate... 25 digits, 36 characters... too lazy to do the math...

Nevermind... now I remember, it's way more than enough... hah...
 
MavericK96 said:
I know that some people really like XP, but COME ON. Get with the times already. MS shouldn't have to keep supporting an 8 year old operating system.
Click to expand...
Who says they should have to support an 8 year old operating system?

Oh that's right... the market forces (aka consumers) who continue to show a demand for a product. It's economic suicide to cut someone off (or even threaten to) when the demand for a product is there.
 
Will Windows 7 show the description for a PC when you browse the list of PC in My Network Places?
 
sfsuphysics said:
Who says they should have to support an 8 year old operating system?

Oh that's right... the market forces (aka consumers) who continue to show a demand for a product. It's economic suicide to cut someone off (or even threaten to) when the demand for a product is there.
Click to expand...

Most people demand it because they're told otherwise by a friend or relative, but have no reasoning why.


This doesn't effect me in any way, but it is sorta silly.
 
This is because Win7 is Vista, so people with crappy computers can run Windows because OEM's don't want the nightmare of supporting that other OS. Nor does Microsoft want that other OS to get market share.

Crappy computers have one or more of the following:
1)Atom crotchtop processing unit
2)Single core machines
3)Machines with <4gb of ram
4)Machines with a slow bus (FSB 533/667/800)
5)Machines with slow hdd's (virtually all laptops)
6)Machines with "integrated" super extreme awesome tubular radical grafix

Fewer people that write reviews have crapped up computers nowadays that's why Win7 is suddenly so great.
 
niconx said:
This is because Win7 is Vista, so people with crappy computers can run Windows because OEM's don't want the nightmare of supporting that other OS. Nor does Microsoft want that other OS to get market share.

Crappy computers have one or more of the following:
1)Atom crotchtop processing unit
2)Single core machines
3)Machines with <4gb of ram
4)Machines with a slow bus (FSB 533/667/800)
5)Machines with slow hdd's (virtually all laptops)
6)Machines with "integrated" super extreme awesome tubular radical grafix

Fewer people that write reviews have crapped up computers nowadays that's why Win7 is suddenly so great.
Click to expand...

Heh, I am running Windows7 on a 1000He which fits into all of those categories, and it runs fine... would run perfect for anyone with basic computing needs for sure, and that's 7 Ultimate in Beta form...

I doubt I'd try to run Vista Ultimate on it, but whatever... I definitely prefer Vista/7 over XP now on any modern machine...
 
niconx said:
This is because Win7 is Vista, so people with crappy computers can run Windows because OEM's don't want the nightmare of supporting that other OS. Nor does Microsoft want that other OS to get market share.

Crappy computers have one or more of the following:
1)Atom crotchtop processing unit
2)Single core machines
3)Machines with <4gb of ram
4)Machines with a slow bus (FSB 533/667/800)
5)Machines with slow hdd's (virtually all laptops)
6)Machines with "integrated" super extreme awesome tubular radical grafix

Fewer people that write reviews have crapped up computers nowadays that's why Win7 is suddenly so great.
Click to expand...

You don't really know what you're talking about do you?
 
I get the chance to use lots of computers in my work. Those are the factors that matter when it comes to responsiveness. Maybe I am just picky? I just cant tolerate the smallest of loading times when I am expected to resolve problems quickly. Frankly I would find a netbook running X with twm and firefox 3 too slow lol. The way I use a machine loads the computers down hard if its slow. Most often this involves installing software/copying files/viewing logs - that sorta thing and you really notice the difference. A fast machine lets you do 3 things at once and is smooth like ice. A slow machine like a netbook wont even run 1 thing without going in and out of a non-reentrant state, unable to even alt+tab without waiting 5seconds to paint the window on the screen. Not to mention those slow machines peg the cpu when using remote assistance software making the problem that much worse.
 
If all my latest software runs on an Operating System, the computer could run with gerbils inside just as long as my software runs properly. It's probably different for Hard-Core Gamers or developers who usually need the latest and greatest, but for the majority of us if it works we don't care what version the OS is.
 
niconx said:
snip
Click to expand...

Hmm. I can hook my aspire one up to an external display and be playing 720p H264 video (with CoreAVC) while browsing the web on the main screen. Remote Desktop is almost transparent...

I'm serioulsy doubting your experience with these things.
 
criccio said:
Hmm. I can hook my aspire one up to an external display and be playing 720p H264 video (with CoreAVC) while browsing the web on the main screen. Remote Desktop is almost transparent...

I'm serioulsy doubting your experience with these things.
Click to expand...

Try running an antivirus scan, installing a large software package like photoshop, while editing the registry, and viewing log files all at once while over a remote desktop connection on the lan. That will basically simulate what i do most of the time. Your netbook will beg for mercy.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Who says they should have to support an 8 year old operating system?

Oh that's right... the market forces (aka consumers) who continue to show a demand for a product. It's economic suicide to cut someone off (or even threaten to) when the demand for a product is there.
Click to expand...

considering you cant even really buy XP any more, they already cut if off in a sense so drop the downgrades already.

cause then people will bitch about "my new 8G of ram isnt being seen WTF! you ripped me off" (assuming they install 32bit)
 
niconx, any netbook would beg for mercy doing all that no matter what operating system it is using. Whether it be XP or Win7. And from what I have seen, read, and experienced, Win7 runs significantly faster than Vista (which I never really thought was really all that slow to begin with).
 
MavericK96 said:
I know that some people really like XP, but COME ON. Get with the times already. MS shouldn't have to keep supporting an 8 year old operating system.

When have they ever done this before? Never, that I can recall.
Click to expand...

They just stopped officially selling and supporting windows 3.11 in November of 2008. They stopped the full support in 01. Thats still almost 11 years of support. They then continued to license it until 08. From May of 1990 until November 2008. Them doing it with XP is nothing new.

Hell you'd be surprised how many systems still rely on windows nt.
 
Mehen said:
niconx, any netbook would beg for mercy doing all that no matter what operating system it is using. Whether it be XP or Win7. And from what I have seen, read, and experienced, Win7 runs significantly faster than Vista (which I never really thought was really all that slow to begin with).
Click to expand...

Exactly, but a decent core2 will be fine doing all that. I was not trying to say that a netbook could do all that under XP, I was saying that netbooks can't handle real computing load. Playing a video and browsing the web doesn't qualify as loading the computer. Those are idle tasks in my book. To even consider a video and browser as qualifiers of performance (as they are in many reviews) shows how slow the machine really is. Which is why I say XP is sticking around, as it can run on woefully underpowered hardware in a way that Vista and Win7 just cant. When the hardware is decent Vista and Win7 work perfectly and you would actually notice Vista/7 are more responsive to user input then XP when the system is under load. I have run Win7 fulltime since beta and I have seen exactly zero difference between Win7 and Vista in terms of performance.
 
I don't think you understand the point of a netbook... don't worry, not alot of people do.
 
niconx said:
Try running an antivirus scan, installing a large software package like photoshop, while editing the registry, and viewing log files all at once while over a remote desktop connection on the lan. That will basically simulate what i do most of the time. Your netbook will beg for mercy.
Click to expand...

I love doing major changes to the registry while installing large software software packages and updates. It keeps things exciting.
 
jbailey said:
I love doing major changes to the registry while installing large software software packages and updates. It keeps things exciting.
Click to expand...

lol

I find the downgrade Vista funny, kind of like downgrading from XP to ME. :p
 
MavericK96 said:
I know that some people really like XP, but COME ON. Get with the times already. MS shouldn't have to keep supporting an 8 year old operating system.

When have they ever done this before? Never, that I can recall.
Click to expand...

People will when their software is supported under Vista/Windows 7. That's the primary reason why some of my friends won't. Certain game titles and some of the software they use for their work simply does not play nice under Vista as of current, no matter what they do to get it to play nice, and its a situation where either the developer hasn't put out a Vista patch for it or they have not made a version of their software that's Vista compatible.

That said, its not necessarily the operating system at fault. Its other software makers who are also dragging their feet too.
 
jynxycat said:
Most people demand it because they're told otherwise by a friend or relative, but have no reasoning why.


This doesn't effect me in any way, but it is sorta silly.
Click to expand...

That's 9/10 people walking through the door at my former employer. They have no specific reason at all other than "it's got problems."

Get them to actually use it for a month and most admit there's precious little to complain about.
 
jynxycat said:
Most people demand it because they're told otherwise by a friend or relative, but have no reasoning why.


This doesn't effect me in any way, but it is sorta silly.
Click to expand...
Reasoning.

It works perfectly fine, I realize this is about preinstall instead of upgrading, but there really was zero reason for me to upgrade to Vista.

*shrug*

MrGuvernment said:
considering you cant even really buy XP any more, they already cut if off in a sense so drop the downgrades already.
Click to expand...
How much of an operating system is bought as software vs preinstalled when you buy a computer? The fact you get a computer, with XP on it, you're buying XP. I know we're a bunch of hardware wises who can throw together a supercomputer from spare parts most of us have around the house, but most people buy the premade dobobs.
 
Um, no offense meant but I really don't understand why the hate against XP or against a person's will to use XP around here.

Its always good to have choices, and its the consumer's right if they wants to stick to XP. Just because there's a new OS out there, doesn't meant we must force it down everyone's throat. If XP is good enough for them, then so be it.

Anyway, what OS other user use doesn't affect us right? So I don't see the point in these raging hate against Microsoft everytime they announce that they will extend the availability of XP. :p

If people still prefer XP, let them be. Just because the user here loves Windows Vista or 7, doesn't meant everyone else must do too..
 
MavericK96 said:
I know that some people really like XP, but COME ON. Get with the times already. MS shouldn't have to keep supporting an 8 year old operating system.

When have they ever done this before? Never, that I can recall.
Click to expand...

I do development work for surface flatness testing, and the dev. tools that aren't great on Vista. I could use a VM, but I prefer to keep an XP partition
 
They should just have the windows xp skin and classic mode in windows 7. It would be easy for them to do it and more people would switch over to windows 7. Its common sense to do that.
 
Conker said:
They should just have the windows xp skin and classic mode in windows 7. It would be easy for them to do it and more people would switch over to windows 7. Its common sense to do that.
Click to expand...


Windows 7 does have the classic skin.
 
Conker said:
They should just have the windows xp skin and classic mode in windows 7. It would be easy for them to do it and more people would switch over to windows 7. Its common sense to do that.
Click to expand...

i've been saying this since i started beta, That would quell some of the whining i'm sure. I really think its the familiarity thing that makes people so resistant to vista and at least occasionally leary of 7.

so yeah give them what they want and skin it
 
Manaknight said:
... I really think its the familiarity thing that makes people so resistant to vista and at least occasionally leary of 7.

so yeah give them what they want and skin it
Click to expand...
I believe you hit the proverbial nail on the head with that one.
I think it is exactly that, a familiarity issue with many people hesitant to switch.

Sure, Vista and Win7 have the classic skin which looks more like Windows 98 or Windows 2000.
I know many people just prefer the look and feel of Windows XP as in the skin, the layout, and the overall "feel" for it.

Some people I come across have developed a "comfort zone" with their computer and like the way things are.
These people are reluctant to switch and feel that the Windows 2000 skin/interface is too clunky and backwards feeling.

I have let people use my notebook computer running Windows 7 and most of the comments I received were to the effect having to relearn where certain buttons and features have been moved.
Some people just did not like having to learn from scratch how to use their computer after having used other windows operating systems for years.

I'm referring to the mom and pop type of people who do nothing more than check email or surf the web on occasion.

If Microsoft were to offer the Windows XP skin as on option, I'm sure it would entice many people to switch to either Windows Vista or Win 7.

... :cool:
 
DustMite said:
Some people I come across have developed a "comfort zone" with their computer and like the way things are.
These people are reluctant to switch and feel that the Windows 2000 skin/interface is too clunky and backwards feeling.
Click to expand...

I've tried 7, think it's great.
Vista on the laptop.
XP still on the PC. It's been the exact same setup for years. Until it fails me in someway my desktop will stay exactly the same as it has been since I got XP. I like it. I spent years perfecting it. If 7 gets some major performances advantages at release or maybe a great app that doesn't work in XP, then I'd make the switch, but until then why would I change anything? It still perfectly suits my needs.

A lot of people simply won't switch because they don't yet see a reason to. There are people still using 95 because it does what they want.
 
I'm not surprised by this, but downgrading is quite unnecessary. If I remember correctly MS is still having that extended support for xp to 2014. Though a sufficient support time for xp would probably be to the end of 2010, or about a year after win7 starts selling, except some critical patching. Still a lot of people are going to use xp because they don't feel any need to upgrade.
 
I remember when you installed the os when you bought an oem computer. Now we have backup partitions built in on the harddrive... which I hate. Glad I build my on computers (except for laptops... too much of a pain).
 
MavericK96 said:
I know that some people really like XP, but COME ON. Get with the times already. MS shouldn't have to keep supporting an 8 year old operating system.

When have they ever done this before? Never, that I can recall.
Click to expand...

Reason is because Vista was super crappy when it first came out.

1GB memory could hardly get by, those super long lag times between the user access control pop-ups, and etc etc.

If it had a better start it would have been well accepted.
 
XP, the little OS that could.

I liked Vista when it came out, I didn't have any of the trouble people complained about, I had up to date hardware, drivers were available, only legacy software that got updated (read, old games, FFXI mostly for me) were a problem, and I had XP in a second partition for that reason, but only until it got fixed, and then away went XP.

SP1 fixed my only real problem with Vista which was the file copy speed, especially over a network. And now I'm on to Win7 since 7000, and then to 7048, 7057, and now 7068. I went x64 right off the bat with Vista too, I was ready for more RAM, it was cheap and available, and so I went for it.

From my A64 4800+ and 7800GTX SLI, to my C2D E6400 w/ single 7800GTX, to my Shuttle E6400 with the 7800GTX, then an 8600GTS when the 7800GTX died, then to the E6400 in my current case with a 650/680 hybrid board, then to the quad, then to this P35 board, then upgraded video etc..

not that any of that really matters...
 
DustMite said:
I believe you hit the proverbial nail on the head with that one.
I think it is exactly that, a familiarity issue with many people hesitant to switch.

Sure, Vista and Win7 have the classic skin which looks more like Windows 98 or Windows 2000.
I know many people just prefer the look and feel of Windows XP as in the skin, the layout, and the overall "feel" for it.

Some people I come across have developed a "comfort zone" with their computer and like the way things are.
These people are reluctant to switch and feel that the Windows 2000 skin/interface is too clunky and backwards feeling.

I have let people use my notebook computer running Windows 7 and most of the comments I received were to the effect having to relearn where certain buttons and features have been moved.
Some people just did not like having to learn from scratch how to use their computer after having used other windows operating systems for years.

I'm referring to the mom and pop type of people who do nothing more than check email or surf the web on occasion.

If Microsoft were to offer the Windows XP skin as on option, I'm sure it would entice many people to switch to either Windows Vista or Win 7.

... :cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it couldn't be more true. To this day on Vista, I still have the "Computer" icon on my desktop and have it sitting on the top-left corner with the recycle bin right below it. I also still refer it as "My Computer" because that's what I used to call it from way back. Though I still carry some old habits, I also drop/evolve some. I almost never go to my Start menu to access anything anymore, and I leave no shortcuts on my desktop. Almost everyhing I wanna access is from the quicklaunch now with big icons. Windows 7 will become the evolution of my current habit, as it's much like a quicklaunch and taskbar combined. Much cleaner and pretty easy to use IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top