Possible to still get WinXP Pro?

[packman 0]

Is it still possible, in the UK, to buy a straightforward copy of WinXP Pro? That's to say, without embedded SP2.

 

I'm a 2K-user myself but am planning for the time when support for Win2K will have waned beyond redemption and where I'll need to invest in WinXP instead. Vista wouldn't be a feasible option for me, due to the more stringent hardware requirements of it. Oh, and I wouldn't be able to move to XP via an upgrade, as my Win2K itself is an upgrade version (unless Microsoft accepts Win98 as the qualifier). Would prefer, anyway, to go for a full version, as then installation is so much easier.

 

I seem to recall there being masses of bugs in SP2 for WinXP and so when I now see WinXP Pro SP2 being sold in abundance, I wonder whether I'll later be investing in a veritable minefield of problems. I've heard that it might be better to instead buy a straightforward copy of WinXP Pro and then download and add the very latest and corrected SP2.

 

But where to buy a straightforward copy of WinXP? I've yet to find any retailer here in the UK that still sells the original version.

 

Anybody care to comment?

[Sampson 0]

Actually, you really do not have much choice in relation to XP. SP2 is the only supported version. SP1 and 1a just lost their support. Actually SP2 is mostly an enormous number of security patches. I like W2K but I also use XP. Certain functions you will have to get used to since some things were changed. But, you can run XP in the "classical" mode and it will look and pretty much feel like W2K.

[Relic 0]

Yeah, I agree with Samson, nothing wrong with SP2, my system is rock solid stable, and I overclock everything in it.

[packman 0]

Maybe all that business about the embedded SP2 being buggy is a fallacy, then. I'd like to be convinced that that's so. However, as I mentioned before, I've read submissions in forums elsewhere where people have seriously regretted buying WinXP SP2 for that very reason. Still, it's difficult to judge such submissions.

 

Please continue to persuade me that an embedded SP2 will be okay - if you can!

 

Incidentally, I notice that in certain OEM versions now you get what's referred to as "SP2B", which is presumably Microsoft's attempt to put right the mistakes they allegedly made in the first issue of SP2.

 

And no, buying an OEM version would be a bad move, as although I'm a seasoned PC builder (for myself), Microsoft has now closed off the loophole whereby self-builders could hitherto legitimately purchase and use an OEM version of the OS.

[jmmijo 1]

Originally Posted By: packman

...And no, buying an OEM version would be a bad move, as although I'm a seasoned PC builder (for myself), Microsoft has now closed off the loophole whereby self-builders could hitherto legitimately purchase and use an OEM version of the OS.

They have ?!?

Hmm, I can still purchase an OEM with some hardware like say an 80GB HD.

Is this specifically an issue in the UK as I live in the states.

[Relic 0]

OEM's can be sold with hardware in Canada too. Heh, for kicks I placed an order with a certain Canadian company that ONLY had XP and a heavy-duty cardboard shipping box. It went through. I cancelled of course, but it did prove that large companies get away with a lot of BS.

 

Most places will sell you a copy of OEM XP with a freakin USB cable, they just don't care, nor does M$.

 

Only prob with the OEM version is that you have to lie to M$ when you upgrade. Swap out a mobo, when you go to reactivate you tell them your mobo blew up. They reactivate XP for you.

 

Tell them you upgraded, they say buy a new copy. What a sick and sad joke. >

 

Explains why a lot people, even those with legit copies of XP, just go the, ahem, "un-legit" way of "activating" XP.

[packman 0]

Here in the UK, some retailers who sell the OEM versions of XP publish the revised advice. You're only supposed to buy and use XP OEM if it's genuinely to be used on a brand new machine, constructed by a systems builder. The advice also states that the version won't be transferable from one machine to another. There's also no support available from Microsoft for OEM versions; instead, it's up to the purchaser to self-provide that support, or to provide it directly to the customer. Whether that impinges also on standard Windows updates via the Web is difficult to say; I'd assume, or rather hope, not.

 

The wording of the advice is expressly along the lines that Microsoft is now closing a loophole that existed, where individuals could purchase an OEM version as a direct substitute for the retail version in order to escape paying the full price. In particular, getting around the ruling by simply buying a PC component alongside the OS purchase would no longer be deemed valid.

 

I've no idea whether this is an issue peculiar to the UK. It could well be, as experience has taught me that just about everything concerning Microsoft is more expensive and more restrictive in the UK than in Canada and the US. The UK has long been viewed as a "rip-off" country, for just about all consumer goods and services, not just Microsoft IT goods.

 

It'll be a matter of temporary conjecture and, eventually, experience as to whether the revised advice will be enforceable. However, I'm sure it's not escaped your notice that Windows updates are no longer downloadable without first Microsoft's Product Validation sequence being envoked. I suspect that this gathers a fair amount of information about your PC and not just whether certain security updates are already installed. In other words, it might well be that Microsoft now take a snapshot of your PC's architecture (the name you give the PC, the public IP address of the gateway to which it's attached, the type of CPU, etc) when you log on for updates and so it might well be that, if it's detected that there's suddenly a change of OS in a given machine to an OEM version, it'll get logged as invalid and the updates refused. This is only conjecture on my part, though.

 

It's certainly the case that downloads from Microsoft's website(s) are now policed a lot more carefully. For instance, yesterday I thought it'd be perhaps a good idea for me to download WinXP's SP2 to my Desktop, to keep for the day when (hopefully) I'd get a copy of WinXP. (It's clearly best to add the service pack immediately after you install the basic OS). I'd simply browsed to the appropriate webpage for the download. But Microsoft instantly detected that my current OS was Win2K and promptly warned me off, in fact refusing to allow me to download it. This can be regarded as a sensible safeguard against someone installing completely the wrong SP, but it's also prohibitive for those of us who want to plan ahead. All the same, it ably demonstrates that Microsoft now monitors MS downloads more closely than hitherto.

 

In one sense, this policing of users' machines is fair enough, I suppose. After all, a retail version of the OS will cost considerably more than the OEM version. (In the UK, the cheapest price I've found for WinXP Pro inc SP2, ie retail, is £215.03 incl VAT). If instead it was just a simple matter of buying an OEM version for personal use when you need to move to the next version of OS, why would retailers (and why would Microsoft) still bother to sell the retail version, at or near the full price? Think about it.

 

Personally, I do have an issue with Microsoft maintaining such a high price, especially in the UK, for both WinXP and Win2K. I was reminded the other day that WinXP was released in 2001 (is that really correct; time flies!) and if that's so, it means that I'd be buying a product that's already six years old and about to be superseded. So, why doesn't Microsoft play a bit fairer and gradually reduce the price of its products as the years advance? A bit of customer consideration would go a long way. I can't think of many other consumer goods where, six years later, you'd still be paying the same price as on the day of first release.

 

 

 

 

[Philipp 6]

Originally Posted By: packman

Oh, and I wouldn't be able to move to XP via an upgrade, as my Win2K itself is an upgrade version (unless Microsoft accepts Win98 as the qualifier).

It is not a problem to upgrade from the Windows 2000 Professional upgrade version. Windows 98 is also an accepted upgrade path.

Originally Posted By: packman

Would prefer, anyway, to go for a full version, as then installation is so much easier.

You could do a fresh installation with the upgrade version as well. The difference is that the installer is asking for an older Windows CD for verification during the installation.

[packman 0]

Thanks. It's good to know that.

 

Actually, earlier this evening I took a look at the latest news about Vista, at microsoft.com, and realised that Vista is, in fact, to be offered in various forms. Furthermore, it seems that the hardware requirements for Vista that I'd originally heard of have been relaxed, so it might transpire that my current hardware will, after all, be Vista-compatible. The one main area of doubt is the graphics capability of my current system, plus of course whether my applications will be backward compatible with Vista (anyone got any general thoughts on that?). But, assuming that that'll turn out okay and I'll be able to use (say) the Basic Home version of Vista, it would probably make more sense to spend the money on that, rather than on WinXP (since Microsoft now seems to regard WinXP as a spent force). It looks like I'll just have to wait for further news about Vista.

 

 

[jmmijo 1]

I've been BETA testing Vista for awhile now, and other then the ATi graphics drivers having some major issues, nothing else has had any, including the drivers for my Silicon Image 2-port SATA controller.

 

However, I've not tested out a lot of apps as of yet, some testing has been done with the following apps however:

 

Lineage 2

Ventrilo

L2J Server

Sun Java SDK 5

[packman 0]

jmmijo,

 

So, are you saying, then, that it's likely that a good many popular applications will be automatically compatible with Vista? I would be very annoyed indeed if I invested in Vista and then found that even just one of my apps was incompatible; I don't exactly use obscure apps. These are they:

 

Office 2000

Photoshop

Photoshop Elements 3

Nero Express 6.6 (and InCD4.3)

Norton Ghost 2003

Pixmantec Rawshooter Essentials (photo-editing s/w)

Firefox

Canon Zoombrowser (photo-editing s/w for EOS350D camera)

Zone Alarm firewall

AVG7 antivirus

WinDVD4

 

plus a few specials utilities.

 

And what about device drivers? Are they all likely to be compatible, or is it going to be one long haul, to find out?

 

If Microsoft could say, for example, that if an app or a driver is currently compatible with either Win2K or WinXP, then it'll automatically be compatible with Vista, I'd be the first to raise a rousing cheer. I suspect I'm being rather hopeful, though.

 

 

[American Zombie 0]

Packman, here is a list of apps working and not working in Vista.

 

Windows Vista RC 2 Software Compatibility List

[jmmijo 1]

@Packman, I see that list and I've not had time to test all these, except Office 2000 Pro, it wouldn't load for me and I had heard that Office 2000 wouldn't be compatible with Vista

 

I can test out other apps/games that you have listed, if I have them that is

 

I can post my findings when I test them as well...

[packman 0]

Thanks, AZ and jmmijo. According to that list, the majority of my apps won't be usable with Vista. So, unless Microsoft brings them, and presumably a lot of others, onboard during 2007, I can safely rule out ever having Vista.

 

Yup, it's beginning to look as though I will indeed need to invest in WinXP instead - or maybe just bite the bullet and struggle on with Win2K.

[jmmijo 1]

Well I still like using Win 2K Pro, it works well for many things on my end, since I dual-boot with Vista RC2 on one of my machines, I can test things out on both OS's to see what does and does not work properly

[packman 0]

Yeh, I've been using Win2K for several years now and, generally speaking, it's been stable and it's done all that I've asked of it. I've had to apply a good many patches, though.

 

I'll feel a bit sad when finally I'll have to say goodbye to it, but it's very much the case now that application writers are producing software for WinXP and Vista, and no longer with Win2K in mind. So, more and more during this last year or so, I've been finding that new applications that I've needed to use have not been 100% compatible with Win2K (some even failing to install properly), despite claims to the contrary by the sourcers of the applications. It's an attitude by them that truly annoys me.