One Third of New PCs Downgraded To XP?

Passion 08-21-2008

More than one in every three new PCs is downgraded from Windows Vista to the older Windows XP, either at the factory or by the buyer, a performance and metrics researcher said today.

According to Devil Mountain Software Inc., which operates a community-based testing network, nearly 35% of the 3,000-plus PCs it examined had been downgraded from Vista to XP.

"Either these machines were downgraded by [sellers like] Dell or HP, or they were downgraded by the user after they got the machine," said Craig Barth, chief technology officer at Devil Mountain. "In any case, these machines are no longer running Vista."

Barth used data provided by users to Devil Mountain's Exo.performance.network — which it kicked off last year and has expanded by partnering with InfoWorld, a Computerworld sister publication — to come up with his numbers. Infoworld first reported the data earlier today. By collating such things as the vendor and system model number with manufacturers' catalogs, Barth was able to identify machines that were probably shipped within the past six months, a period when virtually every new PC was offered with Vista preinstalled.

"The 35% is only an estimate, but it shows a trend within our own user base," Barth said. "People are taking advantage of Vista's downgrade rights."

Under the terms of Microsoft's end-user licensing agreement, Vista Business and Vista Ultimate can be "downgraded" to XP Professional; businesses that purchase Vista Enterprise can also downgrade to XP.

Although Microsoft retired Windows XP from mainstream availability at the end of June — it stopped shipping the seven-year-old operating system to retail and large computer makers — some OEMs have continued to offer new PCs with XP preinstalled by doing the downgrade at the factory. Hewlett-Packard Co., for example, has promised that it will offer the downgrade option on its business-class desktops, notebooks and workstations through July 2009.

"Vista's installed base certainly doesn't equal the number of Vista licenses [that Microsoft has] sold," Barth said, citing the Exo.performance.network data as proof. "We're seeing this a lot in the financial sector."

Devil Mountain's primary product, the DMS Clarity Studio performance-analyzing software, is installed in large numbers at several major financial firms. "One client is not doing Vista at all, but they're refreshing their entire platform this year," Barth said. The company, a nationally known securities firm, is instead downgrading to the 64-bit version of Windows XP, he said.

Last year, Devil Mountain benchmarked Vista and XP performance using other performance-testing tools and concluded that XP was much faster. Barth said things haven't changed since then. "Everything I've seen clearly shows me that Vista is an OS that should never have left the barn," he noted.

Even when stripping Vista down to core components to make it as close in functionality to XP as possible, Vista was 40% slower, Barth claimed, citing recent tests Devil Mountain has performed. "Vista's performance had been an ongoing problem, and the only thing that's saving Microsoft's bacon is the faster processors and more RAM on today's PCs," he said. "Moore's Law is always on their side."

spawnschickishot

well well maybe thats why my computer is retarded lol

Hsoolien

My fathers computer never really runs faster no matter how much it's upgraded, because the faster/more RAM it has, the more crap he has loaded at one time. For him it's the number of things being done at once, not how well any one thing runs.

Raven

Yeah it is. dream tells me how much of those small things you always adding to your computer, that's why its also a good thing just to reload everythin about every 6 months or so.

Hsoolien

I actually have a restore point set just after my last install, when things get too dicey I go back, then it's just a few updates and I'm back to full performance.

orange

but thats because they've loaded so much stuff as opposed to 2 programs that should use nearly no resources. one being an optimizing tool, the other just a simple monitoring tool :\

this comp loads in 4 mins max and has Windowblinds and Styler along with a few other programs on start-up

its not even a great machine (2.1ghz, 2gb RAM, SATA 1.0)


some games do struggle tho. big update on the way!

spawnschickishot

yea i know with me i need that lol or i should just buy a new one... haha

Raven

But if you just buy a knew one you'll proabl end up doing it ll over again. You should just reload the computer, its really easy to do.

orange

well.. for some people it can be a little tricky the first time..

just remember to save all your important stuff, and have all the install/driver discs ready (or better still, visit the vendors site for the latest drivers and put them on a single disc)

download a good virus scanner also.

Nina

That's kind of hard to do since virus scanners don't really work all that great to begin with.

Hsoolien

And sap resources unless you have them only run when you know you're not using the computer, we got a new guy at work cry OMG you don't have a virus scanner, spyware blocker or site checker running (we do have Windows firewall) you are so unsecured. Intial scans bring up nothing, except cookies (which I do not count as spyware and are dealt with in better ways) and now the 2Ghz dual core computer takes 5 times longer to bring up a site and some applications then my 850Mhz home computer. They run faster when they are up, but getting them going takes forever, and when the scanner runs (which he has set to 9am) my computer spanks this one.

Hsoolien added 5 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...:Update:

I should add Virus checker especially are a FALSE sense of security, if you have a hardware firewall (or even Windows software firewall or equivalent, but I don't like the resources/conflicts they bring up), do not pirate and get demos from reputable site, you are more secure then a person that runs a virus checker with no firewall, or one who pirates (and if you get a virus pirating, well I feel as sorry as I do for someone that gets an STD from an unprotected one night stand, not at all). A virus scanner is only as good as it's last update and it takes 24 hours on average to come up with a update that will catch a new virus, and two weeks on average before your computer gets that update, meaning there are a LOT of people out there with virus checkers that get them anyways.

Raven

site cheaker, that about the most annoying protection ever that really doesn't work. it blocks even good sites. I installed mcafee and I know for sure I uncheck the thing for site checker and it still installed it EVERYWHERE.

hugo281

well Mcafee is known for installing every component even if you do uncheck it, well in my case it still helps me out anyway it doesn't bother either, all I did was just turned it off so it doesn't post a message to tell me if the site is good or not

Hsoolien

In the end there all you need is an effective firewall and common sense (ie watch out what attachments you open, don't visit shady sites/DL shady apps) to keep yourself virus free. The last time the computer I'm on had a virus was over five years ago when my brother got one pirating and or surfing porn (never nailed the exact reason). And I run an online check every other month or so to be sure. They just use up resources and create a false sense of security, that often makes things worse as the user was not being vigilante.

hugo281

hmm it could've been or he might've downloaded something he shouldn't, but in any case dude yeah that's what I do on my PC at home, plus with Mcafee and a physical firewall from Sonicwall I haven't had any problems with viruses for a long time now