Dell raises cost of Windows XP downgrade option to $150

As you've no doubt noticed, the deadline for the Windows XP downgrade option keeps getting pushed back and back, and it looks like it's now also getting more and more expensive, as Dell has now tripled the cost of the option on its consumer laptops and desktops to $150. As TG Daily notes, this latest move follows a similar increase to $99 on Dell's more business-minded Vostro laptops and desktops which, for the time being at least, seem to be remaining as is. Of course, you can always put that $150 towards a Windows XP-equipped netbook instead, which seems to be fast becoming the primary home for the venerable OS.

[sdl;fks @ Dec 9th 2008 4:19PM]

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Windows XP downgrade today.

[refriedbeans19 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:19PM]

Just pirate it.

[cb88 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:24PM]

That is what got our economy into this mess!

[zioncat @ Dec 9th 2008 4:28PM]

Wow its crazy that people still think vista is crap. After the SP1 download it ran a lot better. And with the SP2 coming soon it will be as stable as the consumer needs it to be. Why are people trying so hard to hold on to XP. Microsfot already has plans for there next OS so come on people keep up.

[Mike C @ Dec 9th 2008 4:28PM]

today is Tuesday.

[Platinum_Skeet @ Dec 9th 2008 5:11PM]

Honestly it wouldn't hurt too much to offer XP instead of Vista when the customers asking which OS they want. Dell can even advertise it on TV...

[Andrew @ Dec 9th 2008 8:01PM]

Today is tuesday...

[Andrew @ Dec 9th 2008 8:07PM]

Today is tuesday...Better pay up

[OneLove @ Dec 10th 2008 2:19AM]

vISTA Is sTILL ShiTe!

(I use my comp as HTPC and sp1 hasn't fixed the major problems for me, I've changed full hardware twice already. lets see what sp2 does.)

[benahad @ Dec 10th 2008 5:55PM]

Love my XP machine. But anyone sticking up for Vista has not encountered the "Local Only" error yet. Maybe the SP2 will fix.

[cb88 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:25PM]

sorry I was replying to sdl;fks

[refriedbeans19 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:25PM]

Yea, I guess you do bring up a good point =\

[refriedbeans19 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:31PM]

@zioncat

I never said Vista was crap. I'm actually using it right now. ;D

[Mike C @ Dec 9th 2008 4:33PM]

as was I...

[Chris Are @ Dec 9th 2008 4:35PM]

@cb

That makes A LOT more sense. I was like "pirated copies of XP is what messed up the economy...?"

[refriedbeans19 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:40PM]

@Chris Are

If that were the case, I would be so screwed!

[macboy @ Dec 9th 2008 5:11PM]

I second the motion! Can you help me how?

[Aguiluz @ Dec 9th 2008 5:56PM]

I'm using Windows XP Performance Edition on the basement laptop (1.2GHz Celeron, 384MB RAM).

Totally awesome. ;)

[Steveorevo @ Dec 9th 2008 7:46PM]

I'll gladly say it, its crap. I really hate how it always goes 'thunk' and flickers the screen for the most minute security query -because again, its such crap. Linux and OS X are way more graceful about it.

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Dec 9th 2008 4:19PM]

How does one respond to this article without coming across as an apple fanboy?

[waiownsyou @ Dec 9th 2008 4:24PM]

By being a Vista fanboy

[Mark Anderson @ Dec 9th 2008 4:31PM]

Try 'honestly'.

[ethana2 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:56PM]

I have my ways.

[Hashbrown Hunter @ Dec 9th 2008 7:10PM]

...I thought the amish didn't use electricity-based items?

[linuxamp @ Dec 9th 2008 10:51PM]

Here's one way:

It's simply a matter of basic economic principals. The supply of XP has not changed since technically it's always been infinite. So this price increase must be a reflection of the change in demand. XP is in greater demand (than Vista) so the demand slope shifts to the right thereby increasing the price. X -> /\

Jokes aside, it's probably just MS marketing dept trying to get more people on to Vista.

[Thebriz @ Dec 9th 2008 4:20PM]

It's cheaper to buy a copy of XP pro from Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515

[Rob @ Dec 9th 2008 6:09PM]

but then you don't get all the free trials and other crap manufacturer's put on pre-loaded machines

[Antimatter @ Dec 9th 2008 6:22PM]

The difference is Dell has to support XP, and I suspect Dell is using this price increase as a way to discourage downgrades so as to reduce XP support training. In 1 year they're going to have people calling in with Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 problems, and I assume they're going to want to minimize the XP calls.

[Smileypanda @ Dec 9th 2008 7:07PM]

Seriously guys, this is bear crap. Who would fall for this?

[Mike C @ Dec 9th 2008 4:23PM]

Vista is actually a pleasure to use.

[refriedbeans19 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:28PM]

@Mike C

Yeah definitely. It runs very smoothly on my Mac mini. :)

[Tony @ Dec 9th 2008 4:29PM]

i agree. I cant see where everyone is having problems with it honestly. going back to an XP computer feels a bit crippling to me now.

[Cheddar @ Dec 9th 2008 4:31PM]

lol...you are kidding right...you must be running Mohave (chuckles).

[refriedbeans19 @ Dec 9th 2008 4:33PM]

@Cheddar

Epic fail

[Mike C @ Dec 9th 2008 4:34PM]

Hmm, no not really.

Being able to use 16GB of RAM has it's advantages.

[Mark Anderson @ Dec 9th 2008 4:33PM]

@Cheddar

1) No he isn't
2) It was Mojave. With a 'j'.

I'm sorry that your user name appears to refer to the constituent matter of your brain.

[Evan @ Dec 9th 2008 4:48PM]

@refriedbeans19
What makes you the internet authority to decide that a lame quip is an "epic failure"?

@everyone else
What makes your one, isolated, fanboyish experience with Vista a basis for deciding if it is a good or bad OS? However, if several major corporations' IT departments are avoiding Vista, that's a relevant opinion.

[Chris @ Dec 9th 2008 4:55PM]

@Mike C
Vista 32 bit (which is what most people run) like XP can only address up to 4 gigs physical RAM.
Vista 64 bit like XP 64 bit can address up to 16 gigs of ram

I use Vista at work and XP at home. I can honestly say that I still like XP better than I like Vista. But I am a gamer and developer. For most people Vista is a great choice, and is a lot more intuitive than XP. Regardless of if you thought Vista was a good or bad thing, it was a step in the right direction, forward.

[Mike C @ Dec 9th 2008 5:19PM]

Chris,

I'm aware. The majority of the software that I use is Windows only [architectural/design viz genre]. When I was picking up a new computer it was either XP Pro 64 or Vista Ultimate, and at the time there was a deal on OEM copies of Ultimate at Newegg.

Yes, there is other software that runs on Macs, but I don't really like rounded everything aluminum and I really hate the spray everything with gloss and pixie dust look of OSX.

[Izzy @ Dec 9th 2008 5:25PM]

@Chris

Correct me if I'm wrong but Vista 32bit can only handle 3gb of RAM. It only ID's 3gb of RAM in a variety of PC's that I have, 64bit ID's the true 4gb of RAM installed.

[rmfa @ Dec 9th 2008 8:32PM]

@ Chris

A 64-bit can theoretically address 6 exabytes of RAM... 8-)

[Das Gluten @ Dec 9th 2008 11:13PM]

You guys can afford 16gb of ram?

[AkumaX @ Dec 10th 2008 12:36AM]

Vista 32-bit (pre-SP1) and XP 32-bit can only recognize and use a max of 3.5gb
Vista 32-bit SP1 will "recognize" 4gb, but will only be able to use 3.5gb. However, this "lost" 512mb can be used for the GPU buffer, so there is a benefit for Vista SP1 :)

[Ian @ Dec 9th 2008 4:27PM]

Sounds like a Microsoft Tax is catching up to the Mac Tax.

[Lane @ Dec 9th 2008 4:32PM]

You can't really call it a "tax" if Microsoft has a newer version at a cheaper price. They're trying to phase out all of the XP licenses and convince people that XP really isn't worth the hassle. Vista came with my computer, and I haven't went back since.

[ilh @ Dec 9th 2008 4:49PM]

Usually a higher price indicates a better or newer product.

Trying to convince us XP isn't worth the hassle? So they pointlessly change the names of everything in Vista and call it less hassle when trying to find what you're looking for? I spent I don't know how long trying to find Add/Remove programs on my sister's laptop because they changed its name for no reason whatsoever. Before that I was tasked with doing some compatibility testing at work between Vista, Office 2007 and all our other software (we currently use XP and Office 2003) and I absolutely hated it for the same reasons, it's all pointlessly changed. The company (not just me) found it too much hassle and haven't switched and i've actually not touched Vista since tbh.

I'll stick to what I know best, XP/Ubuntu dual boot.

[giuliop @ Dec 9th 2008 5:27PM]

@ilh
Well said.

@Lane
LOL... so, instead of trying to convince us with strong arguments, they triple the price? That's called forcing people, not convincing them.

[Johan S @ Dec 9th 2008 5:35PM]

They are raising the price because supporting old stuff is more expensive .. for stuff like bug and security fixes. They want their top programmers working on newer stuff not the older OS.

See how much a mechanic to maintain a Model T costs.

[giuliop @ Dec 9th 2008 6:09PM]

The Model T isn't a valid analogy: it's vintage and rare, that's why it costs so much. XP is still the most used operating system in the world, by a wide margin; it's not rare at all. No doubt they want to phase out XP, but that's not what I (and millions of people like me) want.

[Shambles @ Dec 9th 2008 6:57PM]

Wow you people really don't know how to read plain english do you. Please go back to the very start of the article. "Dell" raises costs of windows XP downgrade. Not Windows, Dell. Dell is not windows, windows is not dell. I could sell XP to a neighbor for 300$, that doesn't mean that Microsoft is screwing people over.