Microsoft extends XP downgrade availability to 2011. When will it end?
By Donald Melanson 
posted June 19th 2009 1:53PM
posted June 19th 2009 1:53PM
Hold onto your hats folks, 'cause Microsoft has just done the unthinkable and extended availability of its Windows XP downgrade option, again. This latest move, of course, follows complaints that new licensing issues with Windows 7 could cause some serious headaches for businesses still hanging onto XP, and basically force them to either stock up on XP-ready systems before April 23rd, 2010 or face the possibility of Vista-only downgrades thereafter. The new deadline isn't quite as clear cut as past ones, however, with Microsoft saying only that the XP downgrade option will be available for 18 months after the release of Windows 7, "or until the release of a Windows 7 service pack, whichever is sooner." So, as ComputerWorld notes, if Microsoft pushes an SP1 update out the door six months after Windows 7 is released, folks could well be out of luck yet again -- at least until Microsoft sets a new deadline, that is.[Via Electronista]
You expect companies that refuse a relatively easy transition from XP to a modern version of Windows that has built in virtualization . . . to overpriced Macs, that don't support the same software as XP.
You realize that the companies would need to install XP on the macs to get to a point that would even be functional for these backward, outdated companies? You miss the whole point of this, GTFO.
why does anyone get mad over this? if a company wants to keep selling old software, let them. if people want to buy it, they can. if its not profitable microsoft wouldnt be selling it.
this will probably be the last time, i'm guessing. I think the rate at which businesses adopt 7 will be what Microsoft wants. My company is already discussing switching to 7 and there was no talk ever of going to Vista.
We're skipping Vista too, banking on the fundamental similarities between 7 and Vista not causing software compatibility issues when our major software providers finally get around to Vista-ready versions.
It doesn't help MS either that Office 2010 is right around the corner too, raising the possibility of further purchase delays.
After testing Windows 7 for almost 1 year now, I can honestly say that I am never going back to XP, Vista, OSX, or Linux. Windows 7 has been the smoothest computing experience I have seen in 30 years. Even the 64bit only breaks a few things. I replaced that hardware for under $100, with much better devices to boot!! I am never going back -- ever.
I feel bad for anyone who thinks XP is "good enough."
Windows 7 runs circles around both XP and Vista.
I have reason to believe many of these XP enthusiasts haven't used Windows 7. I would rather live without a computer than go back to XP.
Microsoft should should set an end date for XP and stick with it. If users (business or consumer) arent' ready to update to Win7, so be it. If that forces a business to rush and buy a bunch of XP licenses, who cares. If, after that end date, a business buys a new machine they get the OS that comes with it.
The reality is technology evolves, and at some point businesses have to evolve as well. Just as some are just now updating their corp inventories to XP, in five years they will do so again for Win7.
Yes, and the economy would collapse, less productivity, more downtime, and more people switching to a Mac. You don't want that do you?
2110, Microsoft extends XP downgrade availability to 2121. It will never end!!!!
):)
I would suspect any companies that have 1000's of pc's will be fine. They probably have the whole volume licensing thing with MS anyway which would mean they can continue to throw XP on machines until they are blue in the face. This also typically kills the cost to upgrade argument as part of that licensing would include the new OS. I could be wrong but don't think I am. Typically companies wait to upgrade as they need to do testing and, as anyone who has worked in big companies knows, getting things done is a very slow process. I also am tired of hearing the argument that IT is lazy or doesn't want to put in the work of upgrading. Business usually dictates what IT can and can't do. I would say the smaller the company the more able they are to make changes like this more quickly. Fewer cooks in the kitchen so to speak.
If Microsoft was smart they would just release an updated version of XP, that is optimized for multicore environments, with lots of RAM. The biggest thing XP has going for it is everyone knows how to use it. If you release a product that has a learning curve people will refuse to upgrade. Bells and Whistles don't impress me. Speed and power does.
I prefer speed, less bells and whistles and a small memory and disk footprint.
What I want to know is whether businesses and corporations ever went to Microsoft and demanded that they have to have a new OS every few years. If they were having problems with the old OS, then I can understand them complaining and that MS would build them a new one. But this is not the case. They are satisfied with what they're using and they see little benefits for a changeover. What gives Microsoft the right to force a replacement OS on users if they don't necessarily want to change? Exactly who does it hurt the most? Not the user, for certain. I find the most important thing about an OS is that it is practically invisible. Meaning, it does what you need it to do, it is relatively stable and doesn't use up a lot of resources. IT hates changes that aren't necessary. Might as well save the time and energy for doing something necessary.
This BS about needing a new OS every couple of years with a load of new features and pretty interfaces doesn't mean crap to drone business users. Let the application have those things. What is so darn great about Windows 7 that everyone must have it. A couple of my friends that use Windows XP on the job hardly know much about it. They just know it's there when it boots up and they launch into the programs they use. That's it. If it doesn't crash, they're good to go. They're not doing any heavy graphics or video editing or Photoshop or anything taxing the hardware so they never see any crashes.
What businesses are on the verge of collapse with Windows XP that they need to upgrade to Windows 7? Please tell me. Since when should a software company be able to dictate when to upgrade if the user doesn't want to and can't be convinced of the need. I'm not sure if business users should overrule consumers but the money involved is much higher for corporations than some single consumer. Still, the single consumer bitching about why the corporations won't upgrade is beyond me. They don't want to upgrade right now and that's that. A company like Microsoft just shouldn't be able to force a user to upgrade to something he doesn't need or want. There's just something wrong about that.
After having Windows 7 dual booted on my PC for a few months, I can safely say that I'm still not switching to it until at least 3 years. It handles my hardware horribly and runs slower than XP. I'm sure it will be better as soon as its public and my favorite apps start supporting it. Otherwise I couldn't take using Windows Media Player and IE8 for that long. X[
XP will be around when MS introduces Windows 8 in 2020 because Vista and now Vista Pro (aka Windows 7) is still a lame OS.
'oh just buy new hardware!' ok, you do not live or have visited, or have heard of DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, poverty, or economies where a computer able to run windows vista or 7 would cost 5 salaries huh? it's so easy to live in a developed country where the simple fact of having a job, any job, allows you to buy a decent pc. well, here in Brazil this is not how things work. I have a regular job, and with my salary I can't afford new hardware. and I am not an exeption!
All i have to say is this is a ridiculous thread ever. I am using vista for almost 3 years and looking forward to windows 7 and ways good bye to xp. I am glad to depart away from this type of pathetic crowd
"waves bye"
In the last week, I've fixed three infected XP machines. Vista? Two in the last two years. I DON'T think that's a coincidence.
Anyone who thinks Vista adds nothing useful should read up on ASLR, IE protected mode, and yes, UAC.
Yeah, I'm sure none of that has anything to do with the fact that an overwhelming majority of the computers that fall within your demographic of repair probably all run XP. For all you know, 3/10,000 computers running XP is what you fixed, and 2/3 computers running Vista is what you fixed.
More people are currently using XP, more XP computers are going to require repairs.
If ppl want to still use XP then fine, whatever floats your boat. I just don't get the argument about how Vista/7 cuts down your productivity. You can right-click and do about 3x's the things in vista/7 than you could in XP, and the taskbar as far superior to anything you can do in XP. You can have for say 4 office documents open and instead of clicking each minimized window along the taskbar in XP to find the right one you can just hover over the Office icon and see a quick preview of all 4 to select which one you are looking for. I can't see how that is not 100% more productive then constantly clicking your minimized screens along the taskbar in XP, and thats just that one example. Vista/7 also is way more plug-in-play compliant, you literally plug something in, it instantly searches windows update/the internet for a driver for it, and 99% of the time voila, whatever you plugged in works without having to ever pop in an install disk. If ppl want to still use XP then whatever, but don't bash windows 7 b/c it is clearly superior in many ways.
> "You can right-click and do about 3x's the things in vista/7 than you could in XP"
Umm, you do know that the Windows Explorer context menu can be modified, right? In XP, for example, I have a lot of extra features that I have either added myself or installed. This isn't rocket science for those that know what they are doing.
> "If ppl want to still use XP then whatever, but don't bash windows 7 b/c it is clearly superior in many ways."
The idea of superiority is completely and utterly subjective. Based on what metric? Here is the real deal: for YOU it is superior. And that's great. I have no problem with you liking Windows 7 better. Do enjoy it, please. That said, don't tell me it is superior for me, you have no idea how I use Windows XP and how productive I am with it.
I used Vista and it was LESS productive for me because they moved things all over and I couldn't find them. Sorry, that's not helpful. And don't tell me to learn where they moved them. I like XP and that's that. Nothing to argue. Are you a Microsoft stockholder? If not, what do you have to gain from using such derision to manipulate people into using Windows 7?
People do need to Upgrade I mean it helps you out more and the society can get more ADvanced with these capabilities of faster computers and experimenting with software their slow computer couldnt handle
> People do need to Upgrade I mean it helps you out more and the society can
> get more ADvanced with these capabilities of faster computers and experimenting
> with software their slow computer couldnt handle
Um, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. How does my using Windows XP affect you? Illustrate that with a good example, would you? My Windows XP installation is on a newer machine, how is installing Windows Vista or 7 going to change that? Name some software that will run faster on either Vista or 7 than it would run on XP. And then, tell me how this affects society.
:P
I don't see how your comments are helping society...
LOL @ people calling those not wanting to leave XP behind "Luddites."
Help me live.
Why should I run a new OS if it offers me nothing new? I have run XP since before it was RTM'd and haven't seen anything on Vista that gave me any value worth dealing with additional headaches. I ran Vista for over 6 months on a machine and didn't enjoy it. I am not simply pulling this out of thin air.
FYI, I am an experienced .NET software developer (> 7 years now) who still runs XP on his development machine. I am currently working on an enterprise-level ASP.NET MVC application, using Entity Framework and jQuery, etc. etc. On my team, there is a guy running Windows Server 2008 and another running Windows 7. Guess what? We are all getting our work done the same way with no problems.
If you want to run Vista or Windows 7, be my guest. But don't say idiotic things about people that have no problem with XP. I also drive an '89 Honda Civic. Does that make me a Luddite? 40 MPG says I don't care. :P
You're being called a Luddite because Microsoft said you've paid X amount of dollars for Windows XP and you've got more than your money's worth out of it and so they're trying to force you to ante up some more cash because they think you'll enjoy using their new and improved product. They're making you believe that your older Windows XP has become useless to you and all the rest of us Windows XP users who still find it useful. We're clinging foolishly to the past when the future is waiting in a shiny new box.
You'd better not park in front of a Honda dealer or some salesguy will coming running out saying you'd better get rid of that old thing because they have a pile of new Hondas sitting on the lot waiting to be sold. You've driven your old Honda too many miles and it might break down any second. Hell, no. You like the car you're driving, right and it probably has many thousands of miles left in it, so why junk it. It's not like they made some law that you can't drive a car with lots of miles on it. You think it's a classic, so stick with it.
Same with Windows XP. No law says you gotta upgrade, it works fine, you stick with it. What's the big deal. As near as I can tell, Windows XP never came with an expiration date. I swear I never had a preconceived time when it would stop working for me. It would always be my choice when I decided to retire it. So screw Microsoft and non-Luddites.
The problem stems from Vista being such a HORRIBLE product.
I'll continue to use XP even on my new laptop because it's much more stable and faster than the wretched OS named Vista,
It should continue until windows 7 is proved to be not that bad as vista.
MS dumped a major load of
junk on a lot of innocent people who just needed a laptop
and got stuck with Vista garbage (who remember Windows ME?).
Now the the MS fanboys are all thrilled because Win7 doesn't suck
quite as much. They need to keep XP alive a lot longer or they will
continue to kill their partners laptop sales.
They need to stop with the XP kernel. Everyone can upgrade to Windows 7. Watch Windows 7 on a netbook.
http://jamesmsingleton.com
I don't see what all this stupid hype is about this "Windows" program! It sounds just like unstable bloatware to me! From what I understand it doesn't even have a true and proper console mode!! WHAT WERE MICROSOFT THINKING.
Besides that all of the software I use isn't supported yet on anything beyond what I have. I CAN'T upgrade until they do.
I'm just so much more familiar and productive with my current OS and I don't know WHY Microsoft have attempted so vigorously to kill it off!
Yes, I don't think I'll EVER get rid of my beloved OS...
MS-DOS 6.22 FOREVER!!
When they get a suitable alternative
This generation is so spoiled. So what if there was only one version of Windows for six years? I remember when they came out with a new one every year and you had to upgrade even if they didn't add anything....
I bet if it was apple doing this there would be 0 complaints just like the iphone gs craze. People are so brainwashed. If snow leopard was to come out today i bet you anything they upgrade in a heart beat without even questioning anything. How pathetic is that?
As much as I love and respect you dearly, XP, I seriously have to move on to an operating system that is a bit more...modern and upscale. Windows 7 fits in just fine and then some. Eye candy + functionality. ;)
Windows 7 is the best OS that I have ever used, but, long live XP.
LOL this is hilarious, Windows must be bad when people are downgrading or should I say upgrading to windows xp LOL.
A mac user since 1998
I'm really curious about windows7, all I hear about it are dumb fanboys and "I got it first" types and vista fans, but it is as obvious as the nose on your face it must have tons of flaws but I didn't come across anybody critically reviewing windows7.
So in that light, until I hear about a review that eases my distrust about such things as cluttered all-over-the-place management and 'secured paths' and 'kill bits' and what have you I too veer towards support for XP.
At this point for all I know w7 might just be vista clad in a new name leaning on ignorant fanboys as 'reliable' judges.
And no my objection to vista isn't that it needs modern hardware, that was not the only flaw, and certainly not what I dislike about it. My initial negativity came from all the 'security is taking away control from the owner' philosophy, and later when I tried it from what I experienced as an awful userinterface.
i think windows must be go to hell.you have to change you windows operation system,and use MAC or linux(ubuntu9.4).
pls send me if you want any questions BOUT UBUNTU
Microsoft's stuff runs on billions of computers. A major OS change with complex interface enhancements people DO NOT NEED is an instant failure. Even if Windows 7 boots and runs faster than Vista/XP, who cares? Ballmer refuses to acknowledge that the true costs of migrating XP to 7 is not the OS itself.
7 WILL break a lot of software, that is expected - but 7 can cripple if not directly break lots of software that are required to run countless businesses. Hardware does not even figure into this issue, but if the hardware is also incompatible, that's another hidden upgrade cost.
7 WILL require massive user retraining so the users can get used to the new interface. What's the point of turning it off so it looks and feels not anymore different than XP? Vista failed hard because XP is much faster even with all the eyecandy enabled. Vista requires modern hardware (year 2004+) to run smoothly, while XP can run just as fast with late-90s hardware.
7 WILL require change. Even if you're willing to jump head first, Joe Plumber isn't. Change is disruptive. People don't want to change until the stuff they have is no longer available.
The only OSes Microsoft has that don't suck are W2K (still the fastest MS-OS, ignoring hardware limitations), NT4 (it lasted a looooooooooooong time) and XP (W98 SE without the suck). Everything else including Vista is a Battleship Yamato full of epic fail.
This is not even considering what Linux has to offer.
man these people sure live in their caves. Go back to your caves and just stay there people are afraid of change. I am using vista and no problems. Compatibility problems hidden cost??? yea right. Funny how i went from xp to vista and everything migrated seamless. No wonder engadget is full of idiots.
Windows XP is a broken operating system. Any OS that you can still get boatloads of spyware and malware on with all the latest patches and an up to date antivirus without even having administrative rights sucks. I should know, I have to support the damn thing at work.
Vista wasn't so bad people. Yeah it had its flaws but it did what I wanted it to do at work and this is coming from a Mac person. I love my Macs but at work we had to use PC's and Vista did its job. Just kill XP and launch Windows 7 already
http://ziggytek.com/
Only thing more tired than Xp is the whole Mac vs.PC debate. I'm looking forward to 2017, when all the XPer's are arguing the Win7 to Win Ocho upgrade. Really hard to discern valuable info here when there's so much infantilism(sic).
Like ALL of our grannies used to say, 'If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it.'
The should just rebrand it Microsoft® Windows® Lite™ or something and sell it forever as their netbook OS.
Is it just me who thinks this is a no news....
Please read the original Gartner release and then this one and you will note issues neatly hidden in the second document:
1. Downgrade rights are only for Vista Ultimate and Vista Enterprise... Most retail PC's or even for that matter corporate PCs do not come with the highest priced SKUs.
2. Big corporate users always buy volume licensing because it gives them flexibility of using a single image to simply write on all PCs..
3. Even though corporates can no longer buy XP volume license (note: BUY not USE), Vista volume licenses are still available till 2011... And note... that Vista licenses are not only cheaper that Win 7 but come with downgrade rights. (although same problem as Win 7 that it is only for the highest price SKU).
4. Windows XP support ends 2014 and no company wants to be in a situation with no support. So a structured transition to Win 7 should be on cards of every company. Heck most companies will still wait for Win 7 SP1 before formally rolling it across organisation.
Its not the fact that businesses want to stay on XP that ticks me off. Its the fact that so many gamers/geeks, the ones who are supposed to be "smart", are building new PCs with 8GB RAM, DDR5 video cards, etc, etc and then installing XP which can't take advantage of their new hardware. Talk about idiots!
Though I think with 7 there are now some compelling reasons for businesses to move on, I can understand them wanting to stick with XP because of older software or familiarity. However, I don't see any reason why consumers should stick with XP, especially on new machines. Can somebody tell me what good throwing XP on a top-of-the-line gaming rig today would do?
buy a mac :)
I used to be the first person to try the new Win95/98/ME/2000/XP when it came out.....now a lot older with a lot of software that I need for my job (and that aren`t running on Win7) I`m thinking of keeping WinXP for a few more years!I mean, Win7 is a great operating system but I also lost the joy of installing new things just to try them out....That`s what happens when you get older...