Windows 7 may have limited XP downgrade rights
Microsoft will allow only limited rights for those who buy a Windows 7 PC to go back to Windows XP, according to an analyst who said he has been briefed on Microsoft's plans.
According to Gartner analyst Michael Silver, Microsoft plans to only allow the downgrade option to those who buy PCs during the first six months that Windows 7 is on the market (see update below). After that, Microsoft's proposed licensing terms would allow buyers of Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate only to go back to the comparable Windows Vista edition.
That could put users, particularly small businesses, in a bind. That's because many businesses want the right to go to Windows 7 without having to pay more, but will need longer than six months to test the new operating system.
"This becomes an important issue," Silver said, noting that many businesses haven't been running Vista at all and plan to jump from Windows XP to Windows 7. "The ones that skipped Windows Vista need to be able to run Windows XP and later run Windows 7 and would like to not have to pay Microsoft for that (on new machines that they are buying)."
Businesses that have volume license deals for Windows or a software assurance contract would be able to move back to Windows XP even if they bought their Windows 7 PCs after six months, Silver said.
A Microsoft representative was not immediately available for comment (see update below). The company had said it would allow downgrades with Windows 7, but has not gone into great detail.
Downgrade rights, though they also existed with Windows XP, came into prominence with Windows Vista as a broad array of users, from consumers to small and mid-size businesses to corporations, all looked to buy new machines that could run Windows XP.
Silver said he doesn't expect as many people will buy Windows 7 machines with the intent of permanently staying on XP, but he said businesses need more than six months to make the move.
"I think it will be more temporary than with Vista," he said, referring to the downgrade phenomenon. "With Vista, a lot of people brought in machines with XP and had no intention (to move to Vista) or eventually lost that inclination to upgrade to Vista."
Silver also said the six-month rule will create a huge administrative headache for businesses trying to determine which of their machines can legally run XP.
Update, 5:00 p.m.: A Microsoft representative said late Tuesday that the company has decided to extend the period for which Windows 7 machines will be eligible to downgrade to XP. Rather than a six-month window, as originally planned, the window will extend to either 18 months from the Windows 7 launch or until the release of the first service pack of Windows 7, whichever comes first.
Microsoft reiterated that this policy applies to the Windows license that comes with new PCs. Businesses with volume licenses or software assurance that covers Windows can go back to XP or even earlier versions of Windows regardless of when they purchase a Windows 7 machine.
With Windows Vista, PC makers counted on their ability to sell machines with the right to go back to Windows XP, in some cases even pre-loading the older operating system.
(Credit: CNET)
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
More hype to start a flamewar from CNet.
"but he said businesses need more than six months to make the move." They've had over two years to make the move to Vista.
Microsoft dug their own hole, with poor planning they broke several things that work under XP. Now they have to pay the price.
Like I said before:
"They've had over two years to make the move to Vista. "
When has Apple EVER offered a downgrade?
It's okay man! I know you are still suffering from this problem on your crappy Dell:
http://gizmodo.com/378075/dell-tries-to-mend-fences-with-a-laptop-full-of-pubes
Caveat: Assuming that your CPU has the required hardware support for virtualization. Some Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors do not.
Most applications will run in XP-SP3 compatibility mode just by checking that selection in the executable's file properties. And failing that, anyone can download the free XP virtual machine and run it in WIndows 7 if they have applications that simply have to run in an XP OS instance.
This will be a very easy migration for all but the most technologically dense business managers.
Why should I buy something to replace what I'm happily using now only so I can run it in compatibility mode so it'll run like what I already have now? Who makes this stuff up?
If it were simply a matter of changing properties of files to get them to run in Win 7 it would only be half bad but, as you well know it's so much more than that.
Companies are struggling just to stay in business, the last thing they need is Redmond forcing another one of it's infamous upgrades. I wonder how many drank the kool-aid when Vista came out and are crazy enough to fall for it this time?
No one is forcing anyone to upgrade. A company has the right to discontinue old products.
You can drive around in a 1990 Cavalier if you want, by Chevy doesn't have to keep building them. Nor do they have to make parts for discontinued cars forever.
No business has to do this. So why do you think Microsoft has to?
Bad comparison.
All I want to know is, how is it in a companies best interest to upgrade to Microsoft's latest greatest and then have to run it in compatibility mode? It just doesn't make any sense. And now MS wants to limit its users ability to run in compatibility mode.....................why? What do they care?
You might say they aren't forcing anyone to upgrade but, you know as well as I do, you'll eventually upgrade Like it or Not.
True, but if Chevy pulls the plug before most folks are done with the car, Chevy won't be selling a lot of shiny new cars either.
Cars is hardly a bad example, it's real world. If you don't run the vehicle into the ground it should last you 15 to 20 years.
TVs? Analog has been replaced by digital. The venerable VCR? Replaced by DVDs. After 5 years even your toaster oven has likely been discontinued. I can name dozens (hundreds) of products you have likely used that have since been discontinued because they are simply outdated. If we thought as you are suggesting with all products you'd still be driving a Model T on leaded gas and cooking on a wood stove.
In computers you would just sit in 16bit or 32 bit world forever? And how about that computer? How frequently do you replace it yourself? Don't blame Windows if you feel you have to buy a faster processor or video card to play the latest game. That is just progress happening. In nature those that do not evolve and adapt are weeded out and die. You may choose to stand still if you like, but most of us prefer to move forward.
Why this is way OT, I just have to ask: Have you ever known anyone who owned a cavalier? One from 1990? 15 to 20 years? Your nuts. You'd be lucky to get 5 out of those POSs. Was it planned obsolescence or just bad engineering?
Cars wear out, software doesn't.
Bad comparison.
All I want to know is, how is it in a companies best interest to upgrade to Microsoft's latest greatest and then have to run it in compatibility mode? It just doesn't make any sense. And now MS wants to limit its users ability to run in compatibility mode.....................why? What do they care?
You might say they aren't forcing anyone to upgrade but, you know as well as I do, you'll eventually upgrade Like it or Not.
____________________________________
Bull. The fact is that software DOES wear out or become so outdated, even with updates, that it's time to move to the 'latest and the greatest'. That was true with ACDSee 8 to 9 to 10 to Pro to Pro 2 to Pro 3. Each one better than the last and WELL worth it to update, and those were coming out EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
With Windows OS's? Once every 3-5 years.... not a big problem to update.
No, software really doesn't wear out. If a person or company has their needs met by software, they can keep using it. Not everyone needs new features. Unfortunately new computers mean new operating systems and, in many cases, the need to use new software even though the old software still meets the user's needs.
People can still drive their Model T Fords on today's roads.
Well subslug,
I can safely say that becasue I was "crazy enough" to updgrade to Vista, we will not have to worry about this. Maybe I'm just "falling for it" but it's kind of 'crazy' how these things work out if the suggested upgrades are taken at correct times.
-------------
If Microsoft keeps putting out crap they will eventually suffer the same fate as GM.
I bet it is. Which is the reason why Apple wishes it were (which it is, but since it's Apple, it's not a monopoly).
Vista was not a mistake. It was an impressive OS that overhauled much of the problems in XP and introduced all new core stuff. The only crap that people had with it was the retarded upgrading issues thanks to noobs not developing crap properly for Vista (like the retard Intel n00bs that claimed their BS was Vista ready when they were still sucking crap from outdated parts)
____________________________
We have a winner with this post. Vista got rid of NUMEROUS security flaws that were in XP, introduced 'sandboxing', and introduced numerous other improvements and refinements.
It wasn't a bad OS, the idiots were just whining 'MY BENCHMARKING PROGRAM SAYS IT'S SLOWER!" without realizing that the problem was with those benchmarking programs, by and large.
It isn't just in benchmarks that Vista is slower. I can tell you with 100% confidence that I have used computers that ran Windows XP with no problems whatsoever that would take forever to even boot into Vista let alone run programs. The benchmarks were not where the majority found the problems.
But then again, why should anyone bother trying to point this out to rabid Windows fans?
It wasn't a bad OS, the idiots were just whining 'MY BENCHMARKING PROGRAM SAYS IT'S SLOWER!" without realizing that the problem was with those benchmarking programs, by and large."
LOL
Every one of the half-baked security add ons in Vista have been broken.
Vista uses more resources, that is a fact, but gives nothing of value for your lost hardware.
Vista is a pig, you would have to be a technically illiterate fan boy to no understand that. Even MS knows it sucks.
Everything is standardized on XP.
Everything is stable with XP.
Everything is planned for XP.
Everything is tested with XP.
Forcing Vista and Windows 7 on companies means your payments and/or orders and other important data may not be processed correctly until he issues are resolved. Also, costs will go up. Coprorations do not need cool, new features for data processing. They need stability and reliability.
So, your credit card is completely screwed up and the customer support rep informs you it's due to Vista issues. Now how good do you feel about the cool, new technology from Microsoft?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Please. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
His remark about XP stability was directed solely at the companies he consults with. The companies I consult with also have all windows workstations running XP too, and running stable. All new workstations (Dell) we purchase do have XP installed. We do not allow Vista to be used.
I advise all my business clients to stay on XP (if they must use Windows) if they care about running their business more than dealing with the technical headaches that come with anything Vista-based. So far, they have all been happy. It's not paranoia, it's the result of years of experience with it. I've used Vista and hate it. I've worked on brand new systems pre-installed with Vista purchased by friends and spend hours to get it to work at a consistently stable level. Even after all the time M$ has put into Vista, they still have not been able to polish the internals enough for me to ever recommend it as a home system.
Business environments are different than personal consumer environments which makes XP more appealing. Things are usually clamped down much tighter and privileges restrict what users can and cannot do. Vista of course can do that too but it's just not worth the headaches and lost productivity. The higher hardware requirements are a joke too.
Now with that being said, if you're laughing/mocking about the notion that everything is stable with XP, then perhaps the problem is not with XP but in the way YOU use it. I'll bet money that you are the one that does not know what you are talking about.
I think twburger's comments need to be viewed as from those companies perspective, rather than a general statement.
In the real world, that screaming will get you nowhere fast. If you work with real world software, you should know that.
Where does M$ find its customers? Trailer park trash communities? Job centres? Walmart stores? AA meetings? State sponsored courses for illiterate rednecks?
inquiring minds need to know
lol M$ at its best! buy a dodgy new service pack III (deceitfully named as Windows 7) and we'll allow you to downgrade to a 8 years old XP, a still workable, virus friendly, crash prone old Windows OS. lol you couldn't make it up. The icing on the cake is that M$ will charge extra for it. "
Apple biy here maybe? OMG you can pick them out any where. Little do they know about MS let alone computers in general statement.
"Besides, MS is a convicted monopolistic and criminal corporation that has yet to pay its dues to society for the harm it has caused much less change its monopolistic practices."
-- this statement alone shows your bias and tells me I can disregard everything you say. Then you add this...
"Therefore I declare it is not illegal to use MS products without paying. "
-- then I know for sure that you are not only wrong, but you are a thief as well.
Have a nice day.
Windows 7 is just better then Vista. Putting personal basis aside will only show one the truth. Otherwise comments get aout of line and landup like hte above person "TRIED" to brain wash people with. Windows 7 is better the what is now Vista.
I only stated the facts. Any interpretation as a biased statement only shows your ignorance. Have a nice day yourself.
Personally, I like the look and feel of Win7, at least what I've seen of it so far, but all the software I has is still working on XP, and I have all the software I need (as do most people/businesses, I can only assume).
Easy answer: keep using what's working. ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it.")
There are so many companies that are having similar problems, although they are not hard to work around, but being forced to get something when we are already happy and stable does not make sense.
BTW, the company is buying as many XP licenses possible to get by until drivers are available for their other products to work with. (The problem lies when a product is made with components made by several companies and if one of the components does not have drivers ready, then it will not work).
- by pentest June 17, 2009 10:54 AM PDT
- Wow, MS is hellbent on dissuading everyone from buying their next buggy, bloated, swiss cheese POS.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Lumiseon June 23, 2009 5:48 PM PDT
- Hmmm. Windows 7 is now buggy, bloated, a dairy product, and a POS? I hear otherwise, and SAY otherwise. I've seen NO bugs in it so far. AT ALL. It's not even bloated. It takes up very little space, compared to what I expected. Diary Product's don't go good with a computer. So...yeah, keep your milk away from then. And it's most certainly NOT a P. of S. Far from it. I've yet to have a single problem with it, on a computer from 2004.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (67 Comments)