Neowin.net

Of course, but that is just business.....

yeah business tend to mess up math most of the time.

Do they still call that "new" math, or am I told old for that!!

Doesn't MS always charge extra for their premium software? j/k

the software comes with new computers depends on what image they load into your new drive. so there's no issue of production cost differences unless Microsoft is charging more to sell xp. this kind of BS is totally rip off.

note that all major PC makers uses OEM activation meaning that if you can get a copy of xp or vista(any edition), they can be installed on these brand name systems skipping activation business all together. the OEM activation certificates can also be injected into regular xp or vista CD/DVDs. And loading previous version of the same Microsoft product is legal.

No, it's not. You are only licensed the product you paid for. SLIC licensing requires two parts: a certificate embedded in the BIOS and one on the installation media. Having these for Vista does not give you free access to XP or the other way around.

download this doc file. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;DisplayLang=en

xp pro and vista biz are certainly included. you either buy a xp install cd from dell for 5 bucks shipping or get it else where.

can I say PWN3D?

How is it fueling it? you'd think that with the higher specifications of Windows Vista, it would be the ultimate way of pushing bigger, more expensive and powerful machines onto joe average.

Windows Vista is suffering because it provides nothing noticable to the end user to justify migration too; if the problems experienced were hugely out weighed by the features - there would be no outcry. The problem is that there are insufficient features to off set the issues people face.

Don't be stupid, Vista is definately not suffering. Migration issues? That's plain BS.

The upgrade feature in Vista works perfectly (after RTM > SP1). I've been using Vista on my OLD computer for a year, and I see no problem with it. Sure, some of my games run at 2-3 FPS less (and yes, that is no exaggeration I can prove it), but other than that, I would much rather use Vista than XP; its just a lot smoother and cleaner to use.

Of couse, on my brand new machine, Vista blows me away, and is actually much faster than XP, due to SuperFetch and video drivers that are made for Vista then ported to XP.

Here are some specs in CoD4 (each tested at 20 mins per session):

Old Computer:
XP: 28 FPS av.
Vista: 26 FPS av.

New Computer:
XP: 78 FPS av. (or around 60 FPS with slowdown only during highly active areas)
Vista: 86 FPS av. (or 60 FPS with no slowdown)

EDIT: I forgot to add, if you play games on higher than 25 FPS, you will usually tell no difference to 60 FPS unless you see them side by side.

You do realise that when people purchase their hardware, they don't throw all their old software out and get new stuff - realise that? or do you live in the land of the money tree, where people routinely go out and replace software at the drop of a hat.

Suffering? if there was a mass movement, I can assure you Microsoft would be the first one singing the praises; when you have Microsoft managers being reshuffled, project leaders regrouping and doing a post mortem - what does that say to me, the observer.

I said that all the inconvienence of moving has not been outweighed by any perceived 'superiority' of Windows Vista. I've run Windows Vista, there is nothing wrong with it, if you have no legacy applications which you rely on. If all your applications are going to be brand new, off the shelf, Windows Vista compatible; then its a great operating system. The vast majority of end users aren't in that position.



Yes, but I never said that there are cases where Windows Vista does its thing well; read the above reply.



Yes, but you are running applications that are designed to take advantage of it; again, read the reply I made.

Management shuffling occurs everywhere and at any time in the corporate world. It's common to move people around after a project, just as it's common for any good development team to write up a postmortem on any project when it's complete whether it was successful or not.



I'd sure like to know where this huge pile of incompatible apps is. I've found precious few and most of them aren't worth using anyway.

I'd have to agree. I'm in a situation where my mum wants to buy a laptop for doing very little. So far the only laptop we've found that's ideal is the Eee PC, but that's tiny ad she wants a big screen. I'd love to recommend a Vista laptop to her but in my eyes the amount she'll do with the laptop, Vista's system requirements, and the amount something capable enough will cost means it's hard to justify. The system requirements are an unnecessary step up, and 99% of people will get hardly any benefit from Vista.

My mum is in the same situation except for her, I loaded on SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 (SLED) w/ the latest service pack. She loves it. All the software she needs at a cheap price. Everything works out of the box, as expected.

You can plug a regular monitor into the Eee PC. My mother has one and I tried my 22" flat panel on it and it worked just fine.

I disagree. I can tell a difference between 30 and 60fps. Maybe my eyes refresh faster then most peoples. I think that it is a common misconception that people can't perceive frame rates faster than 25fps... sure they can. The 25fps is what people perceive as fluid motion, not the maximum frame rate of the eye balls (if there were such a thing). Athletes, for example, have to process what they see very quickly in order for their reflexes to work. Similarly, someone playing a first person shooter at 60fps will have an advantage over someone playing it at 30fps all other things equal.

Well she wants to sit anywhere she likes, and a full sized keyboard is an extremely high want on her list as she'll be doing a lot of typing.

Well it does come with 4 USB ports as well, just plug a keyboard into any of them.... Does she have the Linux or XP version?

Yes, it is. If consumers want Dell to create decide drivers for an obsolete operating system they should contribute to the extra cost involved with that.

dell don't write any drivers. the drivers are provided by parts manufactures. however they do provide a sh*t load of crapwares which are happily welcome if they stop creating them

Actually Dell is the only laptop and desktop manufacturer and that provides you with a REAL Windows reinstallation disk. Unlike other computer manufacturers, that provide you with a "recovery" disk that restores the computer to its original state with the crap ware.

They should get sacked for not providing Vista 64-bit drivers for those late 2006 to very-early 2007 systems, such as my M1210 laptop. It was originally a "Designed for XP: Vista Capable" PC, then (I'm assuming) a Vista Premium system as it runs Vista rather fine when I got it - Vista was preinstalled. But while its younger sibling M1330 gets Vista 64-bit drivers, this one doesn't? (64-bit does run fine after a trip to Windows Update and hunting down drivers, but that still doesn't excuse Dell.)

It would have been stupid for dell to sell machines with 98 on them instead of XP 4 years ago, XP is far superior to 98 and always has been from the first day it was released.

Vi$ta is such a total failure that people are still demanding XP and dell is delivering, albeit for $50.

You may like vi$ta and that's fine, there's nothing wrong with having that preference, I purchased a new dell XPS that came with vi$ta, it's a quad core and came with 4 gigs of memory and two 8800gt's in sli, vi$ta ran like a dog so I purchased XP64 and the machine really came to life,
Later I upgraded to 8 gigs of memory and an asus Xonar DX2 pci express around the time that SP1 came out for vi$ta, I read some positive reviews about SP1 and thought I would give it another try since I did like the aero look and I think the UAC is something that is lacking in XP so I purchased the vi$ta 64 DVD upgrade for 10 bucks, installed everything correctly and used driver cleaner before installing any drivers, vi$ta still ran like a dog compared to XP64, I ran vi$ta for 3 weeks, tweaking it every day, the performance just plain sucked and it had tons of useless crap to weed through.

The fanboys will always play the blame game, drivers, lack of knowledge etc etc.. but the writing is still on the wall, vi$ta truly is a failure.

XP was superior to 98 in the exact same way that Vista is superior to XP: Better security, better stability, better architecture.

But in the real world, games performance was terrible (Of course this is no longer true with XP/Vista.), there were driver issues, app compatibility problems, etc.

But in the real world vi$ta is not superior to XP, perhaps during the M$ marketing it may have seemed superior but it just isn't working out for vi$ta in the real world.

Have your opinion, that's fine. But goddamn it quit substituting S for SHIFT+4 FFS.

No, M$ fleeces everyone out of their money with their schemes and criminal acts, it is proper to use $ in place of S because the almighty dollar is the only thing they stand for, they would screw you out of every dime you have if they could, selling a product for profit is one thing, breaking countless laws, invading your privacy, strong-arming/bullying anyone who dares to get in their way, that's something else entirely.

And then there's the vi$ta pricing scheme(aka fleecing), my gawd I could be here all night citing examples...

im sorry to say this, but you sound so lame typing like that, and my god saying you tried vista because of the UAC and it ran like a dog, i thing you better learn how to setup a system first and then talk.

vista works like a dream in more crappy pcs than what you said

I'm not sorry to say this but you have some serious reading comprehension issues, fanboy.

Another funny thing about your pathetic fanboy reply that makes me laugh even more at vi$ta, if I don't know how to setup a system, which of course I do, by your fanboy logic someone who doesn't have a clue on how to setup a system is in for some real trouble with vi$ta ROFL!

Jesus Christ, if you want them to be a nonprofit organization then be my guest, go assassinate all their shareholders and start picketing in front of their campus. And before you go on the "THEY ARE EVIL FOR BUCKS" tirade I think it's fair to say in the last few years they've had their fair share of antitrust rulings handed down to them and now they're finally cleaning up their act. I mean ****, what else do you want?

Also I like how anyone that doesn't agree with you - hell they could work with all OSes - are automatically fanboys. Get over yourself.

I'm not sure why you had so many problems setting up Vista. I found the install very simple. I've enjoyed the experience and I like the new features it has that XP doesn't. Some of the features can easily be added to XP with 3rd party software, albeit it is nice to have them integrated into Vista. The games I'm interested in run just fine.

Anyway, I don't think you are old enough to be on this board. Luckily for all of us, there is an ignore user feature.

Hallmarks of the common vi$ta fanboy, the deliberate reading comprehension errors, the insults etc etc...

Actually you're just a member of the 'M$' bandwagon. A group of IRC-esque anti-Microsoft haters justifying their disdain for the company AFTER deciding to feel that way. After all, if you're going to criticize Microsoft for the cost they pass on to consumers, you'd have to be just as ready--if not moreso--to criticize Apple for the cost of 'O$X' point upgrades, '$ymantec' for charging us anything at all, the 'U$' government for taxing, double taxing, and triple taxing the same things in countless cases, your cell phone provider for continuing to bill text messages and internet separately while forcing the included IM software to use texts instead of kb, and dozens of far more egregious offenders than Microsoft could ever hope to become.

In fact, just stop whining about Microsoft entirely and go rant at AT&T et al. At least MS doesn't charge you a ridiculous fee if you decide to switch operating systems before two years are up.

Given micro$ofts reputation I would not be surprised and I wouldn't put anything past them no matter how shady or unethical.

And exactly how is related to Microsoft? Dell is doing that because they can.
If you don't want to pay extra to downgrade, you should search for another vendor that doesn't charge you.

Is this wrong? I think it is, but what can users do, besides choosing not to buy dell? nothing more...

Vista is well established right now, i see no reason to pay (the license price is included in OEM computers) for an old OS that soon will cease to receive securty updates and patches when for the same price (less in Dell's case) you can embrace a new OS and begin to learn its new features, its pros and cons, etc.

And exactly when will XP no longer be able to receive security updates? vi$ta is far from being "well established".

It's all good if someone wants to learn a new OS but when the new OS has more cons than anything else...

LOL. Funny thing is people are willing to pay.

Vista - it's that bad.

It speaks volumes about a persons IT literacy if they have to pay someone to uninstall an operating system for them, certainly not a person I would consider the opinion of anyway..

Interesting that every company who claims they're 'not moving' are badly run. Take GM for example and how terribly run their company is. I would be lying if I didn't think your company was in the same 'crap run company' class as GM given your whining.

Oh give me a break. Where did you go to business school? Any business that would kowtow to suppliers and hand over gobs of cash with no positive impact on the bottom line is the one badly run. A business in the business of making profit for the owners and shareholders. It is not exclusive of M$ to make a profit.

Outside of GM there are a large number of blue chip high tech companies (automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical) keeping well away from VI$TA due to legacy software that will not port over without huge outlays of cash for hardware and labour with ZERO net benefit.

Now the real problem for everyone else on this planet is that companies like M$ et al, have profit as their one and only goal and reason for existence and to heck with any other responsibilities or morality. To those with the memory and perceptions of a Gnat let me spell it out. M O N O P O L Y .... M$ didn't start out that way but they did everything in and out of the book once they got there and stay there, on top of spreading like the plague into every niche and cranny they could get into. They are the business model the telcos and cable networks hold up as an icon. I wonder why?