ie8 fix
madison

There's nothing new about Windows downgrade rights

By | April 7, 2009, 10:21am PDT

I’ve been laughing out loud for days now as I read the astonishing number of comments and reactions to the revelation that Microsoft is going to allow some customers who buy Windows 7 on a new PC to exercise “downgrade rights” and replace their shiny new OS with Windows XP. The implication is that this somehow represents a surrender on Microsoft’s part to the operating system that won’t die, Windows XP.

Sorry, folks, this isn’t news. It’s the way business versions of Windows have been licensed for as long as I can remember. Many businesses run on proprietary software that might or might not work with a new operating system, so business customers who buy a new PC with a Windows license can choose to replace the installed copy of Windows with an older version.

You can see the current version of this clause if you look at the OEM license for Windows Vista Business or Ultimate. Section 14 reads as follows:

14. DOWNGRADE. Instead of using the software, you may use one of the following earlier versions:

  • Microsoft Windows XP Professional,
  • Microsoft Windows Professional x64 Edition, or
  • Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.

This agreement applies to your use of the earlier versions. Neither the manufacturer or installer, nor Microsoft is obligated to supply earlier versions to you. You must obtain the earlier version separately. At any time, you may replace an earlier version with this version of the software.

Ah, I can hear you saying now, “But this is different! With Windows 7, Microsoft is going to give its customers the option to skip Vista and go all the way back to XP. That proves that Windows Vista sucks!”

Uh, OK. By that logic, XP sucks 50% more than Vista. If you bought Windows XP Professional on a new PC, your downgrade rights included the option to replace it with any of three previous Windows editions: Windows 2000 Professional, Windows NT Workstation version 4.0, or Windows 98 (Second Edition). Thank goodness we didn’t have blogs back in 2001, or they would have gone completely nuts over Section 1, paragraph 6 of the Windows XP Professional license terms:

Use of Previous Version Of Software. In lieu of installing and using Microsoft Windows XP Professional SOFTWARE, you may install, use, access, display and run ONE of the following versions: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, Microsoft Windows NT Workstation version 4.0 or Microsoft Windows 98 (Second Edition) (”Downgrade Software”) on the COMPUTER, provided (1) you agree that Downgrade Software support will NOT be provided hereunder by Manufacturer, MS or Microsoft Corporation, their affiliates or subsidiaries: (2) you agree that neither Manufacturer, MS nor Microsoft Corporation will provide you with the Downgrade Software or media; (3) you may not loan, rent, lease, lend or otherwise transfer the CD or back-up copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional to another end user, except as otherwise provided in the transfer provisions of this EULA….

If you’re a corporate customer with a Windows Vista Business or Enterprise license acquired through a volume licensing program, you have the right to install just about any business edition of Windows. A Microsoft-issued downgrade rights chart (Word format) lists your options:

[C]ustomers licensed for use of Windows Vista Enterprise are licensed for Windows Vista Business, and it can be downgraded to the Windows XP Professional, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows NT® 4.0, Windows NT 3.51, Windows 98, or Windows 95 operating system. You would not, however, be able to downgrade to Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Home Premium, Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, or Microsoft Windows Millennium as those are different products and not considered previous versions of Windows Vista Business.

The exact license terms for Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate have yet to be released, but when they are, yuo can expect to see wording that looks very much like the terms I listed above.

In other words, there’s nothing new here, folks.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

74
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: There's nothing new about Windows downgrade rights
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
LOL, you tell'em Ed!
If an organization or individual were to purchase a new computer with a Windows operating preinstalled, and wished to downgrade to an older Windows operating system, the best plan of attack is to purchase a new hard drive and install the older Windows operating system on it. Then when they are ready to migrate to a newer O/S, simply install the hard drive that originally came with the new computer. This takes less than ten minutes.
0 Votes
+ -
XP Sucks
iHateLusers 7th Apr 2009
XP user interface is so ugly compared to Vista or Windows 7. Who would want to use XP instead of 7?
0 Votes
+ -
Who would want to use XP instead of 7?
Third of Five 8th Apr 2009
"Who would want to use XP instead of 7?"

Probably companies that have software that runs on XP or IE6 that can't easily be retooled to run on Vista or 7.
Personally, if I had a person who was making software for me tell me "By the way..... I'm going to lock this to IE6.... NYAAAH!".... I'd fire him.

There is NO reason for this 'proprietary software' to be locked to any internet browser, OS, etc.

NONE IN THE SLIGHTEST! If they are.... I'd be calling up the person who made the software and say "We have a problem, you have some explaining to do!"
0 Votes
+ -
I don't necessarily disagree with you
Third of Five 14th Apr 2009
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't think it's so much "locked to" a browser or OS as much as that the code written in a way that isn't compatible with later versions of the product (possibly when Microsoft was trying to completely make the browser a part of the OS).

Also, what I meant when I said that it ran in XP but wouldn't run properly in Vista or 7 largely has to do with the stricter guidelines (or at least the stricter enforcement of said guidelines) under Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you Mr. Bott.
jamesrayg 7th Apr 2009
The clueless vista bashers have been going nuts (as usual) over this non-story for days. Sad thing is, this stuff never dies no matter how many people tell the truth, years from now we'll be running into angry 17 year old anti-ms geeks talking about how MS knows Vista sucks because you can downgrade 7 to XP...
Does Apple allow you to downgrade? Can you purchase a Leopard Mac and downgrade to Tiger or OS9? Just curious...
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Apples and oranges
Ed Bott 7th Apr 2009
Downgrade rights are driven by business needs. How many businesses are running mission-critical custom OS X applications that are version specific? They would be the only ones would need a downgrade.

And since OS X is not a business OS, there's no need for Apple to offer this option.

Ironically, there seem to be lots of people who wish it were available:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=apple+downgrade+leopard+tiger
0 Votes
+ -
I'm confused by...
msalzberg 7th Apr 2009
your statement that "OS X is not a business OS."

What makes an OS a "business OS?" Is there some specification that
makes it so? If a business uses OS X, is it by definition not a business?

I'm also curious as to why you feel UNIX isn't a "business OS."
0 Votes
+ -
OS X can be used for business...
Sleeper Service 8th Apr 2009
...however its proprietary nature makes it unsuitable as a business OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Say what???
linux for me 8th Apr 2009
...however its proprietary nature makes it unsuitable as a business OS.

Explain to me how that makes OS X unsuitable but Windows, another proprietary OS, is suitable??? Or Unix, which is proprietary...Or linux which is open source and another business OS???

Your statement is totally illogical. Yikes!
0 Votes
+ -
It's proprietary because...
Sleeper Service 8th Apr 2009
...you can only install it on Apple hardware. As such there is no leverage in terms of competition when sourcing hardware vendors and, as such, it's non-competitive.
0 Votes
+ -
Please point me to a ...
msalzberg 8th Apr 2009
non-proprietary version of Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Windows is a proprietary OS...
Sleeper Service 8th Apr 2009
...but it's not tied to proprietary hardware.

Big difference.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Line-of-business applications
Ed Bott 8th Apr 2009
Large businesses run on Windows, typically using applications what were written in-house or by partners. These aren't off-the-shelf apps, they are custom code that allow employees to perform their jobs.

Tht's the way it is today in large businesses. They could choose to migrate to a different OS, but that would require a huge investment in rewriting those apps.
0 Votes
+ -
First of all, not all businesses are large. Many are small. In fact, we're
told over and over that small business is the primary job creator
in the US.

Secondly, not all businesses, large or small, run custom apps.

Thirdly, not all businesses, large or small, run custom Windows
apps. Ever hear of mainframes from a company called IBM? They
support the following OSs: z/OS, z/OS.e, z/VM, z/VSE, TPF, z/TPF,
Linux on System z. Say what you will about the banking industry, but
this is what they seem to be using.

Fourth, it is a huge mistake to look at "business" as a monolith. Every
business has its own needs. It's this kind of thinking that makes
corporate takeover specialists buy airlines and bankrupt them (eg,
Eastern, TWA), or the Long Island Rail Road to hire someone who ran a
freight system in Australia as its head. Freight doesn't complain when
it's twenty minutes late, but people do.

I asked this question elsewhere, on a different subject: If, as is often
stated, businesses can't use iPhones, did my wife's company no longer
qualify as a business when they dumped their Blackberrys for iPhones?

If a business doesn't use custom Windows apps, isn't it still a
business?
0 Votes
+ -
Which would be true if...
Sleeper Service 8th Apr 2009
...the vast majority of small businesses didn't use Windows, Office and standard packages built to run (mainly) on Windows.

That said, Apple's business penetration is, a handful of large clients aside, virtually always small scale 1-20 station shops. These shops are massively outnumbered by their Windows running brethren though.

Lareg scale businesses use mainframes for main systems but virtually always use Windows desktops with terminals to run mainframe dependent systems from whilst using Office as a productivity suite.

There are exceptions but that's what they are: exceptions.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not disputing the Windows ..
msalzberg 8th Apr 2009
market share. My point is this: Windows is no more a "business OS" than
is OS X, Linux, or System z. It's a silly assertion.
0 Votes
+ -
The problem is that...
Sleeper Service 8th Apr 2009
...it's become the business OS precisely because of market share. I don't think this is actually a desirable or healthy position; nonetheless it's reality.

Now OS X could be a good business OS if it was to be licensed to third parties but Apple, for the moment anyway, are dead set against that.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe so, but...
msalzberg 8th Apr 2009
that doesn't make Windows a 'business OS,' and others not. There are
many businesses that don't use Windows, so, by definition, it isn't the
only OS suitable for business.

I've never seen a car dealership's service center run on Windows. The
largest 25 banks run IBM mainframes without Windows. I'm sure a little
research could come up with a great many companies and industries that
have minimal reliance on Windows.

I have a real problem with sweeping generalizations reported as fact.
0 Votes
+ -
My company is about 200 employees
wolf_z 8th Apr 2009
Which is small, as such things are measured. We have a custom application that pretty much runs the company, has 100,000 lines of code, and took a year and a half to write.

Of course that application gives us a huge competitive advantage over our competitors, too.

But believe what you like. I do know most of our competitors *don't* use custom software--but then that's why we're able to out-perform them with less people. happy
0 Votes
+ -
I guess you just noticed...
zkiwi 8th Apr 2009
Ed is a Microsoft junkie. He probably thinks that IBM and Oracle etc don't do well in the "business ready" milieu.
0 Votes
+ -
is "Microsoft Report." I usually find Ed's commentary quite
informative, and don't mind his Microsoft bias. He's up front about it,
and that makes all the difference in the world to me.

But sweeping generalizations like this are wrong, and I feel that it
should pass unnoticed. I've used Microsoft's products for many years,
from DOS to the Win 7 beta. I have no problem with their products. I
happen to have found a different system that I prefer to use, both for
home and work.

One size does not fit all. If a consultant is called in to solve a
problem, and he/she starts with trying to find a "Windows solution" as
opposed to a "solution," he/she is cheating their client.
0 Votes
+ -
Fare cop
zkiwi 8th Apr 2009
I guess I should have been clearer in expressing with what I take as his "Microsoft is the only solution" mindset.

That being said, thanks for the consultant comment. It's refreshing to see someone actually say that.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Misinterpretation
Ed Bott Updated - 8th Apr 2009
Sorry if my remarks were incomplete. When I said "OS X is not a business OS," I should have said what I meant, which is that it is not widely (or even barely) used for business purposes in corporate settings. There are literally hundreds of thousands of mission-critical applications in use in enterprises that have standardized on Windows, many of them hooked into back-end databases. If you can find examples for OS X, they would be very rare, because businesses want to run on inexpensive standardized hardware.

A business can certainly use Macs for many things. But they are not widely used in enterprises, nor could they be without a large investment in code development. And good luck finding those coders.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks.
msalzberg 8th Apr 2009
There's a big difference between "not a business OS" and "not widely
used in business OS."

The first is a comment as to its suitability, the second is to its market
share. One does not necessarily follow the other.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: There's nothing new about Windows downgrade rights
angrykeyboarder Updated - 7th Apr 2009
I wish I could delete a message (like this one that I just edited) where I clicked on "reply to story" instead of "reply to message" by mistake".
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I'll ask the moderators
Ed Bott Updated - 8th Apr 2009
... You can always put a note in here to the moderators asking them to delete and then click the Report as Spam button. That should get it done.
0 Votes
+ -
Have you missed the point Ed
martin23 7th Apr 2009
Ed I mostly agree with what you post (except when your on a MS sales drive) but you seem to be glossing over the issue of MS offering a downgrade not to the previous version but to the versions which is not many years out of date.

If this is an option then it will be totally new given that MS had declared XP dead as a dodo as far as support is concerned whilst twice having to extend its life as far as sales concerned.

MS seems to be facing the same problem as all long term software companies in that it has a growing user base which wants to look after its installed base not worry about where it goes in the future.

As far as I can see Windows 7 seems to have done a good job in fixing all the weaknesses in the Vista product. Maybe its time for MS to take the choice away and not give users the option of XP but instead make them look to the future.



0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Not glossing over anything
Ed Bott 7th Apr 2009
Most businesses have a refresh cycle that can range to as much as six years. So it makes sense for MS ot support, via downgrade rights, any OS that it has sold with new PCs in the past six years. It did that with XP when it offered downgrades all eh way back to NT4, and it is doing the same with Windows 7, which is coming roughly three years after XP.

Downgrade rights and support policies are related but not closely linked. Microsoft has declared end of life for XP home versions but XP business is still in extended support.
0 Votes
+ -
At least one coat of gloss?
martin23 7th Apr 2009
There is a difference between MS offering a downgrade from XP to NT and a downgrade from Windows 7 through Vista all the way back to XP.

Companies have known for years where MS was going with its O/S. Vista has failed and MS is rectifying this with an earlier than planned windows 7 release but continuing to offer XP availability is a mistake.



0 Votes
+ -
Your argument doesn't make sense
RationalGuy 7th Apr 2009
There is a difference between MS offering a downgrade from XP to NT and a downgrade from Windows 7 through Vista all the way back to XP.

Same number of hops "all the way back":

XP --> 2000 --> NT4.0
Win7 --> Vista --> XP

What exactly is the difference beyond you saying there is one?
0 Votes
+ -
releases releases
martin23 7th Apr 2009
The issue is not about the release names just the time scales.

See my post to Ed. NT4 had only been replaced for a year and a half when XP was released. Windows 2000 was an NT update in all but name.

XP was released nearly 8 years ago. Replaced two and a half years ago.



0 Votes
+ -
Now I understand what you mean ...
RationalGuy 7th Apr 2009
... regarding the time frames. NT 4.0 was about 5 years old when XP came out. XP will be about 8 years old when Win 7 is released.

I'm still not sure your argument totally holds water. People still want XP. Sure, this has a lot to do with the perception of Vista. But it also says a whole lot about XP as an OS, and how entrenched it has become in the enterprise.

Windows 2000 was a big step up from NT 4.0 in terms of supportability. Windows XP added just the right amount of polish, and really hit the sweet spot for a business desktop OS.

In other words, I'm not surprised XP is around longer than NT 4.0 was, because it's really that much better of an OS. There is undeniably a Vista factor at work here too, but I don't know if it's the whole picture.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I don't see a difference
Ed Bott 7th Apr 2009
In both cases they are busines OSes that go back five years. Businesses make decisions based on compatibility of their apps, and an app orignally written for XP needs to continue running on XP to be viable. In 2001, MS did the same with Windows 2000 and its predecesor, NT4.
0 Votes
+ -
... in offices and data centers all over the world (if not NT 3.51).

"Downgrade Win7 to XP" is a complete non-story.
0 Votes
+ -
Are your time scales right
martin23 7th Apr 2009
Is'nt there a difference. NT4 was the main business O/S up to 2000 (even though it was released in 1996). So when XP was released in 2001 of course they were going to support NT.


Here we are talking about an O/S which was replaced by MS at the end of 2006. So in many ways it is quite a different approach.

My main concern is much as you have expressed in the past that by being stuck in the past users will constrain the future.





0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
If you bought a XP machine in 2007, you still had the right to downgrade it to the NT4 OS from 1996, 11 years earlier.

XP was supposed to be replaced in 2005 (Longhorn), which would have put its successor in 2008. What you are calling out has more to do with the failure of MS to execute a consistent release strategy in the mid 2000s than anything else.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree (ish)
martin23 9th Apr 2009
Ed I don't think there were many customers buying NT in 2007 and I don't think too many suppliers would load it for you. However, I accept that you may be technically right it was an option in some people contracts.

I'd also agree about the problem being in late deliveries in the middle of the decade to much belief in .NET etc.


The problem is that MS becomes more and more hobbled by its installed base. The need to constantly support very old architectures and out of date software.

The people who may get burnt the hardest could be those who did go Vista which is looking as if it will have a sunset date not much later than XP.

0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Sunset dates
Ed Bott 9th Apr 2009
Those are set by Microsoft's Product lifecycle policy. I've actually written about this:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=551

Mainstream support for Vista will run until November 30, 2011 (at least) for home edition, until January 30 2012 for business editions. Extended support and security updates will be available until at least November 30, 2016.
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly
Kid Icarus-21097050858087920245213802267493 7th Apr 2009
No one is EVER ready for MS's OS when it is first released.

Security, Scalabilty, and Robustness be damned!
...once again. You guys are pathetic. You're so consumed by your hatred for them you can't just be happy to use whatever OS suites you. Instead having to criticize and fault every little thing ad nauseum. You guys really do need help. Seriously.
0 Votes
+ -
I will love MS the day that they
T1Oracle 7th Apr 2009
1) Pay me back for the terrible travesty that was Windows ME. (I spent $120 on RAM that it did nothing for the "system resources" because "system resources" was fixed independently of RAM size)
2) Stop aggressively using their money, patent lawsuits, and influence to force other companies and technologies out of the market. (a tech company should foster innovation, not stomp it out)
3) Quit doing under the table deals that facilitate point #2.

Ok, I could let #1 pass but it will keep me from wanting any more copies of Windows.
Finally someone puts this out there i was tired of reading: Wow you can downgrade to Windows XP from 7...
0 Votes
+ -
In typical fashion you sidestep the point
chrome_slinky@... 7th Apr 2009
which is - until the advent of the mistake that is Vista, almost no one outside the corporate environs knew of, or gave a damn about downgrade rights.

Until Vista each version (minus Windows Me) was a clear step ahead, touting features that consumers wanted (with XP it was large drive support and ease of use with games).

Vista offered what... some shine to the interface with a lot of grime covered underneath, Windows 7 removes a slight bit of grime, and replaces it with 1993 technology (the movement of 'program groups' to the taskbar).

I tend to take your articles with much salt, because lately, your are more of an evangelist for Microsoft than anyone else I can think of - and I read a lot.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Yawn
Ed Bott 7th Apr 2009
Yes, how come no bloggers were writing about downgrade rights in 2001, when XP was introduced? Oh. Wait. No blogs then.

You forget how much people hated XP when it came out. If blogs had existed, XP might have been received just like Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
That's just silly.
T1Oracle 7th Apr 2009
Opinions affect blogs not the other way around. Bloggers want hits, saying the things that other people are thinking is how you get hits. Hence, our current trend.

Also, in 2001 there were magazines and letters from the readers. If there were an issues with downgrades then there were plenty of avenues to voice it.
0 Votes
+ -
Do a Google search....
Cylon Centurion 7th Apr 2009
You'll be surprised what you'll find wink
0 Votes
+ -
...still don't give a damn about downgrade rights.
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix