Stores won't put XP on their low range laptops

[bilateralrope]

I recently decided to purchase a laptop. So looking through various stores and I found that while most stores only had laptops with Vista, there were a few that sold laptops with XP. But no store offered XP on their lowest spec laptops, which made the cheapest XP laptop a few hundred dollars above the cheapest Vista laptop.

Getting another OS, or even a laptop with no OS loaded, wasn't an option.

I even had one store tell me that Microsoft wasn't selling XP anymore and therefore they only sell laptops with Vista, even though he also says that their cheapest laptop can't handle running Vista. So he then tried to get me to buy a more expensive laptop. So whatever my final choice, I won't be buying it from there.

I was expecting XP laptops to be hard to find. I wasn't expecting the cheapest laptops to be Vista only. So does anyone have any idea why this is the case ?

[General Zod]

Microsoft is really pushing for the whole "Vista experience" thing. Of course you could always buy a cheap OEM version of XP off someplace like Newegg or TigerDirect and simply install over Vista once you get the machine.

[Darth Tanner]

he also says that their cheapest laptop can't handle running Vista

Hold on, he's telling you that he's selling laptops that can't actually run their own pre installed operating system?

What a salesmen.

[Netko]

Erm... why exactly is it a problem to have Vista preloaded (as long as you do the sensible thing and get at least a gig of RAM - possibly as an aftermarket upgrade)?

[SCRawl]

Erm... why exactly is it a problem to have Vista preloaded (as long as you do the sensible thing and get at least a gig of RAM - possibly as an aftermarket upgrade)?

Well, for one thing, it probably means that you're paying for a copy of Vista, even though (according to the salesman) it's useless for the laptop in question. If your intent is not to use Vista, then paying for it is a problem.

[White Haven]

Vista uses more resources and has more compatiblity problems, at current, than XP, plus a really irritating driver-compatibility handling bug, although that's not an issue for new full new system. So...more resource drain, which isn't unusual for a new version of windows, but is still bad on a low-end system, in return for potentially having more software compatibility issues. Sounds like a win-win to me, no?

[Noble Ire]

I needed a laptop with XP for school (Vista didn't work with their network), and I had a really hard time finding a place that would sell me one, cheap or otherwise. A salesman at Circuit City even tried to tell me that it was illegal to sell new PCs with XP on them. I ended up finding a good Toshiba with its XP system intact online, but the experience was still really frustrating.

[White Haven]

We've been making a killing off Vista here at work. Not because people want it, but because they don't; we're an OEM channel business, but a small one, and we still do about 95% XP traffic due to Vista's shaky (to be kind) launch. If you can find someone like that local, that'd also be a decent choice, if they're reputable.

[Shogoki]

I needed a laptop with XP for school (Vista didn't work with their network), and I had a really hard time finding a place that would sell me one, cheap or otherwise. A salesman at Circuit City even tried to tell me that it was illegal to sell new PCs with XP on them. I ended up finding a good Toshiba with its XP system intact online, but the experience was still really frustrating.

Vista not working with a network sounds really off, i don't think there's any reason why Vista wouldn't work with a school network.
However, your school might offer XP licenses for students, so maybe you can get one for free just asking them.

[Netko]

Vista uses more resources and has more compatiblity problems, at current, than XP, plus a really irritating driver-compatibility handling bug, although that's not an issue for new full new system. So...more resource drain, which isn't unusual for a new version of windows, but is still bad on a low-end system, in return for potentially having more software compatibility issues. Sounds like a win-win to me, no?

Which is why I noted the need for a gig of ram - other then that though, considering that a new system is, in any sane situation, supposed to have compatible hardware, why not? I've been using Vista exclusively since RC1 and have found really minor incompatibility problems software wise, almost all limited to system tools, which is what you'd expect (the only one which I'd consider a showstopper was the lack of support for the original first gen iPaq running, I think, Windows Mobile 2002 in the new Mobile Devices Centre replacing the old Activesync - luckly I found another way to do what I wanted). Unless you have some piece of software that you really need and which you know doesn't work under Vista and that there will not be a Vista supported version, I really don't see a reason not to go with Vista for a new system now that the driver situation for new hardware has mostly been resolved.

[Sharp-kun]

Vista not working with a network sounds really off, i don't think there's any reason why Vista wouldn't work with a school network.

Depends if the network uses any kind of special software. Back when I was in school they used something from RM Systems to do a lot of permissions stuff.

[phongn]

Microsoft is strongly pressuring the OEMs and VARs to exclusively sell Vista. Only the big guys like HP, Dell, Lenovo, et. al. can really tell Microsoft to piss off.

I'm using my sister as a guinea pig for Vista - with 1.25GB of RAM, a P4/2.6GHz (non-HT) runs quite smoothly for what she does.

[White Haven]

Funny, we've seen just the opposite. People get stuck with Vista from the big boys, and the tiny OEMs like us still move XP systems.

[Molyneux]

Erm... why exactly is it a problem to have Vista preloaded (as long as you do the sensible thing and get at least a gig of RAM - possibly as an aftermarket upgrade)?

Because Vista's a piece of shit, and it's never a good idea to pay for something you neither want nor need?

[FedRebel]

I even had one store tell me that Microsoft wasn't selling XP anymore and therefore they only sell laptops with Vista, even though he also says that their cheapest laptop can't handle running Vista. So he then tried to get me to buy a more expensive laptop. So whatever my final choice, I won't be buying it from there.

Same situation with me at Best Buy, the Geek Squad rep pointed out that the cheapest laptop there came with Vista but it can't really handle it

I was expecting XP laptops to be hard to find. I wasn't expecting the cheapest laptops to be Vista only. So does anyone have any idea why this is the case ?

Leave the customer no alternative, it's Vista or nothing, sure there's Mac but hardly anyone uses it.

[bilateralrope]

Same situation with me at Best Buy, the Geek Squad rep pointed out that the cheapest laptop there came with Vista but it can't really handle it

Did they also refuse to offer you the laptop with a free OS or no OS loaded ?

Leave the customer no alternative, it's Vista or nothing, sure there's Mac but hardly anyone uses it.

And mac laptops are much more expensive. Or at least the ones I looked at were. Apart from the price, they would of been acceptable.

Though a friend of mine working in another store told me that there were recalls of XP shortly after Vista was released, so the stores still selling XP laptops are probably just getting rid of old stock or didn't actually return all their XP disks. So it is Microsoft to blame here. But this just explains why XP laptops are hard to find in general, not why its only on the more expensive ones.