The XP group is just as busy as Vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rachel
  • Start date Start date
Colin Barnhorst738002 Wrote:
> Contrarians have always been so. XP was terrible before Vista came out.
> Then it was "save Win98" and "just wait for Longhorn." Now Vista is
> terrible and it is "save XP" and "just wait for Windows 7." In 2010
> Windows
> 7 will be terrible and it will be "save Vista" and "just wait for
> Windows
> Wonderful." It has never, never been any different. Contrarianism is
> a way
> of finding affirmation through negativism. Just think about how they
> talk
> about their spouses!

I agree completely. Regarding the acceptance of Vista, I've always told
people that this is no different than the transition to any other
iteration of Windows. People cannot seem to remember back only a few
years to when many people started out by saying "I'm never going to give
up my 98SE... it's the best version of Windows ever made." Nothing is
any different about wanting to save XP. Personally, I loved the way
Vista looked and felt from the beginning. I DID, however, hold off on
selling and supporting it until the announcement of SP1. Not because I
didn't feel it would take over or become mainstream, but because, as
with anything new and unfamiliar, there is bound to be more headaches
than usual. To the majority of Vista bashers: get over yourselves...
when was the last time you wrote code for an OS?


--
bad_the_ba
 
The date and time was 6/5/2008 5:45 PM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
pounded out on the keyboard:

> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:SH_1k.8621$gc5.4779@pd7urf2no...
>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23miKE$1xIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> They were bashing XP prior to Jan 2007. Presently, they are warming up
>>> for the arrival of the next incarnation of Windows.
>> You are right, there was XP bashing back then. One I remember was
>> eXTortion. Because it had more DRM in it, but not nearly as much as
>> Vista. Add to it most of that DRM was bypassable inside the first year.
>>
>> But that aside, it died quickly with the first round of patches and inside
>> of 16 months everyone was jumping onto XP without a peep. Companies were
>> in full roll outs and going all out XP.
>>
>> 16 months of Vista, and everyone is still complaining and companies are
>> holding out. Long gone are the days where people lined up outside of
>> stores at 4am to be the first to get Windows 95. Bet Vista Ultimate full
>> retails have dust on them. Microsoft has been on a slide ever since with
>> ever increasing resistance to change. Partially due to it's own success
>> and partially due to Vista's short comings.
>>
>> No one held off for Win 98 or WinMe 15 months after Win95. Or at least no
>> one I knew. WFWG was inferior to Win95. Vista is just a pile of problems
>> for users over XP and offers nothing tangibly new.
>>
>> But the fact is, XP bashing is no where near the levels of Vista bashing.
>> Not even remotely close.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> XP, if you remember, received SP2 which was NOT a simple rollup of updates.
> It was a MAJOR rewrite of over 5 million lines of code.
>
> I also dispute your claims that companies were rolling out XP gleefully in
> the early days. Many companies could see no reason to use XP, and still
> can't.
>

Would you care to validate those comments? Businesses that hadn't
already moved to W2k moved to XP quickly. The instability of Win9x was
a no brainer in a move to XP. "And still can't" is a comment completely
off the wall.

> Al of this bashing has been seen before. Unfortunately, Vista appearance at
> the door co-incided with a downturn in the global economy, and was badly
> supported by OEMs and peripheral device manufacturers.
>
> It will be interesting to see what is said about Vista when Windows 7
> appears..
>
>

Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable
than XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the
funds implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
The date and time was 6/5/2008 8:18 PM, and on a whim, Shawn Skonberg
pounded out on the keyboard:

> I have to say. I was on a couple of service call today and I said to myself,
> "I wish this computer had Vista" That happens to me often while fixing
> computers. I deal with a high volume of computers. Vista is way more
> reliable then XP.
>
> "Rachel" <petlamb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OwjN0a1xIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> All you Vista bashers now need to turn into Windows bashers. Vista's
>> reliability is going up while XP is going down.
>>

More reliable how exactly? What a crock. You're jumping into a fish
pond and you're just a guppy.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
The date and time was 6/5/2008 8:57 PM, and on a whim, bad_the_ba
pounded out on the keyboard:

> Colin Barnhorst738002 Wrote:
>> Contrarians have always been so. XP was terrible before Vista came out.
>> Then it was "save Win98" and "just wait for Longhorn." Now Vista is
>> terrible and it is "save XP" and "just wait for Windows 7." In 2010
>> Windows
>> 7 will be terrible and it will be "save Vista" and "just wait for
>> Windows
>> Wonderful." It has never, never been any different. Contrarianism is
>> a way
>> of finding affirmation through negativism. Just think about how they
>> talk
>> about their spouses!
>
> I agree completely. Regarding the acceptance of Vista, I've always told
> people that this is no different than the transition to any other
> iteration of Windows. People cannot seem to remember back only a few
> years to when many people started out by saying "I'm never going to give
> up my 98SE... it's the best version of Windows ever made." Nothing is
> any different about wanting to save XP. Personally, I loved the way
> Vista looked and felt from the beginning. I DID, however, hold off on
> selling and supporting it until the announcement of SP1. Not because I
> didn't feel it would take over or become mainstream, but because, as
> with anything new and unfamiliar, there is bound to be more headaches
> than usual. To the majority of Vista bashers: get over yourselves...
> when was the last time you wrote code for an OS?
>
>

And when was the last time you "sold and supported Vista"? Poser...

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
I have several warranty service calls a week, most people ask if we can
replace Vista with XP so they can get back to work.
I tell them to call the OEM and ask. As an agent of the OEM while doing
warranty work, I can't/don't make promises or statements on the OEMs behalf.

I also give them a card, in case there is a problem....
I have had about 25% call me later and ask about a private service call to
install XP.

"Shawn Skonberg" <jerky@live.com> wrote in message
news:C1C7E818-ECF5-4BEF-977A-383EA40DB5DA@microsoft.com...
>I have to say. I was on a couple of service call today and I said to
>myself, "I wish this computer had Vista" That happens to me often while
>fixing computers. I deal with a high volume of computers. Vista is way more
>reliable then XP.
>
> "Rachel" <petlamb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OwjN0a1xIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> All you Vista bashers now need to turn into Windows bashers. Vista's
>> reliability is going up while XP is going down.
>>
 
"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> Would you care to validate those comments? Businesses that hadn't already
> moved to W2k moved to XP quickly. The instability of Win9x was a no
> brainer in a move to XP. "And still can't" is a comment completely off
> the wall.
>
>
> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable than
> XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the funds
> implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".

This tallies completely with my experience of UK universities and business.

ss.
 
"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was 6/5/2008 5:45 PM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
> pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:SH_1k.8621$gc5.4779@pd7urf2no...
>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23miKE$1xIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> They were bashing XP prior to Jan 2007. Presently, they are warming up
>>>> for the arrival of the next incarnation of Windows.
>>> You are right, there was XP bashing back then. One I remember was
>>> eXTortion. Because it had more DRM in it, but not nearly as much as
>>> Vista. Add to it most of that DRM was bypassable inside the first year.
>>>
>>> But that aside, it died quickly with the first round of patches and
>>> inside of 16 months everyone was jumping onto XP without a peep.
>>> Companies were in full roll outs and going all out XP.
>>>
>>> 16 months of Vista, and everyone is still complaining and companies are
>>> holding out. Long gone are the days where people lined up outside of
>>> stores at 4am to be the first to get Windows 95. Bet Vista Ultimate
>>> full retails have dust on them. Microsoft has been on a slide ever
>>> since with ever increasing resistance to change. Partially due to it's
>>> own success and partially due to Vista's short comings.
>>>
>>> No one held off for Win 98 or WinMe 15 months after Win95. Or at least
>>> no one I knew. WFWG was inferior to Win95. Vista is just a pile of
>>> problems for users over XP and offers nothing tangibly new.
>>>
>>> But the fact is, XP bashing is no where near the levels of Vista
>>> bashing. Not even remotely close.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> XP, if you remember, received SP2 which was NOT a simple rollup of
>> updates. It was a MAJOR rewrite of over 5 million lines of code.
>>
>> I also dispute your claims that companies were rolling out XP gleefully
>> in the early days. Many companies could see no reason to use XP, and
>> still can't.
>>
>
> Would you care to validate those comments? Businesses that hadn't already
> moved to W2k moved to XP quickly. The instability of Win9x was a no
> brainer in a move to XP. "And still can't" is a comment completely off
> the wall.
>
>> Al of this bashing has been seen before. Unfortunately, Vista appearance
>> at the door co-incided with a downturn in the global economy, and was
>> badly supported by OEMs and peripheral device manufacturers.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see what is said about Vista when Windows 7
>> appears..
>>
>>
>
> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable than
> XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the funds
> implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.


Going into 2004, W2k was still holding its own (just a few % below).

"Slow uptake of Windows XP

Thus the announcement to end the products was widely seen as a "forced
upgrade" strategy. Business and home users alike have been reluctant to
upgrade to a system with substantially increased hardware requirements. An
Ottawa-based IT asset analysis tool vendor, AssetMetrix Inc. found that,
based on 370,000 PCs from 670 companies of different sizes in the US, the
users of Windows 95/98/NT currently accounted for more than 40 percent of
the corporate users of all flavors of Windows. Windows XP, which was
released in January 2001, was used by only 6.6 percent and only 19.8 percent
of the companies had no Windows 95 or 98 systems. Other research also
supports significant use of the older systems. IT Week reported some 35
percent of companies still have Windows 95, 98 or ME (Millennium) on some
desktop computers.

For household users the picture is not much different. According to the
Internet search engine Google, in September 2003, 29 percent of Internet
searches came from computers with Windows 98. Analyst IDC found that there
are 39 million people using Windows 98 around the world.

It was routinely assumed in the PC industry that the average lifetime of a
Windows OS installation is around three years. Based on this conception, the
life of Windows 98 and NT should have been long over. Windows 98 was first
released to the market in 1998, followed by "98 SE" (Second Edition) in
1999. NT was released in 1996. Despite fierce advertising and convenient
upgrades to Windows XP for those with volume agreements, the uptake of the
new system has been slow. There are a number of reasons for this. The first
is the substantial increase in hardware requirements for the new system.
Faced with the costs of both new licenses from Microsoft and new hardware
purchases, business and home users were not convinced of the benefits of an
upgrade. There were also certain problems with the new OS in terms of
running older applications and, particularly in the case of laptop
computers, certain hardware compatibility issues.

The release of XP also followed the burst of the financial bubble in the
software industry in 2001. Companies and ordinary buyers alike soon realized
that their money could be spent better elsewhere rather than upgrading
computers that appeared to work just fine. In 2001, US PC sales plummeted 12
percent from the year before.

Microsoft appears to have thought it could bypass these objective economic
facts by simply bullying users into an upgrade. Their decision to pull back
was based on the realization that an upgrade to XP was not the only option
facing business and home consumers. No doubt the increased publicity of
commercial backing for Linux by a number of prominent companies, including
IBM, played a part in this realization, as did Sun's aggressive marketing of
their new Linux-based Java Desktop."

Despite all of the above, where some were writing off MS just as they are
now, XP went on to claim 75% of the OS desktop market.

Throughout the entire period 2001 - 2008, Linux and Mac sales have risen by
no more than 1% each.

Vista faces exactly the same challenge and, despite the bashing, will win
through..


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
The date and time was 6/6/2008 6:07 AM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
pounded out on the keyboard:

> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
> news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> The date and time was 6/5/2008 5:45 PM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
>> pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:SH_1k.8621$gc5.4779@pd7urf2no...
>>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23miKE$1xIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> They were bashing XP prior to Jan 2007. Presently, they are warming up
>>>>> for the arrival of the next incarnation of Windows.
>>>> You are right, there was XP bashing back then. One I remember was
>>>> eXTortion. Because it had more DRM in it, but not nearly as much as
>>>> Vista. Add to it most of that DRM was bypassable inside the first year.
>>>>
>>>> But that aside, it died quickly with the first round of patches and
>>>> inside of 16 months everyone was jumping onto XP without a peep.
>>>> Companies were in full roll outs and going all out XP.
>>>>
>>>> 16 months of Vista, and everyone is still complaining and companies are
>>>> holding out. Long gone are the days where people lined up outside of
>>>> stores at 4am to be the first to get Windows 95. Bet Vista Ultimate
>>>> full retails have dust on them. Microsoft has been on a slide ever
>>>> since with ever increasing resistance to change. Partially due to it's
>>>> own success and partially due to Vista's short comings.
>>>>
>>>> No one held off for Win 98 or WinMe 15 months after Win95. Or at least
>>>> no one I knew. WFWG was inferior to Win95. Vista is just a pile of
>>>> problems for users over XP and offers nothing tangibly new.
>>>>
>>>> But the fact is, XP bashing is no where near the levels of Vista
>>>> bashing. Not even remotely close.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> XP, if you remember, received SP2 which was NOT a simple rollup of
>>> updates. It was a MAJOR rewrite of over 5 million lines of code.
>>>
>>> I also dispute your claims that companies were rolling out XP gleefully
>>> in the early days. Many companies could see no reason to use XP, and
>>> still can't.
>>>
>> Would you care to validate those comments? Businesses that hadn't already
>> moved to W2k moved to XP quickly. The instability of Win9x was a no
>> brainer in a move to XP. "And still can't" is a comment completely off
>> the wall.
>>
>>> Al of this bashing has been seen before. Unfortunately, Vista appearance
>>> at the door co-incided with a downturn in the global economy, and was
>>> badly supported by OEMs and peripheral device manufacturers.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see what is said about Vista when Windows 7
>>> appears..
>>>
>>>
>> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
>> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable than
>> XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the funds
>> implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
>> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".
>>
>> --
>> Terry R.
>>
>> ***Reply Note***
>> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
>> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>
>
> Going into 2004, W2k was still holding its own (just a few % below).
>
> "Slow uptake of Windows XP
>
> Thus the announcement to end the products was widely seen as a "forced
> upgrade" strategy. Business and home users alike have been reluctant to
> upgrade to a system with substantially increased hardware requirements. An
> Ottawa-based IT asset analysis tool vendor, AssetMetrix Inc. found that,
> based on 370,000 PCs from 670 companies of different sizes in the US, the
> users of Windows 95/98/NT currently accounted for more than 40 percent of
> the corporate users of all flavors of Windows. Windows XP, which was
> released in January 2001, was used by only 6.6 percent and only 19.8 percent
> of the companies had no Windows 95 or 98 systems. Other research also
> supports significant use of the older systems. IT Week reported some 35
> percent of companies still have Windows 95, 98 or ME (Millennium) on some
> desktop computers.
>
> For household users the picture is not much different. According to the
> Internet search engine Google, in September 2003, 29 percent of Internet
> searches came from computers with Windows 98. Analyst IDC found that there
> are 39 million people using Windows 98 around the world.
>
> It was routinely assumed in the PC industry that the average lifetime of a
> Windows OS installation is around three years. Based on this conception, the
> life of Windows 98 and NT should have been long over. Windows 98 was first
> released to the market in 1998, followed by "98 SE" (Second Edition) in
> 1999. NT was released in 1996. Despite fierce advertising and convenient
> upgrades to Windows XP for those with volume agreements, the uptake of the
> new system has been slow. There are a number of reasons for this. The first
> is the substantial increase in hardware requirements for the new system.
> Faced with the costs of both new licenses from Microsoft and new hardware
> purchases, business and home users were not convinced of the benefits of an
> upgrade. There were also certain problems with the new OS in terms of
> running older applications and, particularly in the case of laptop
> computers, certain hardware compatibility issues.
>
> The release of XP also followed the burst of the financial bubble in the
> software industry in 2001. Companies and ordinary buyers alike soon realized
> that their money could be spent better elsewhere rather than upgrading
> computers that appeared to work just fine. In 2001, US PC sales plummeted 12
> percent from the year before.
>
> Microsoft appears to have thought it could bypass these objective economic
> facts by simply bullying users into an upgrade. Their decision to pull back
> was based on the realization that an upgrade to XP was not the only option
> facing business and home consumers. No doubt the increased publicity of
> commercial backing for Linux by a number of prominent companies, including
> IBM, played a part in this realization, as did Sun's aggressive marketing of
> their new Linux-based Java Desktop."
>
> Despite all of the above, where some were writing off MS just as they are
> now, XP went on to claim 75% of the OS desktop market.
>
> Throughout the entire period 2001 - 2008, Linux and Mac sales have risen by
> no more than 1% each.
>
> Vista faces exactly the same challenge and, despite the bashing, will win
> through..
>
>

For one, we weren't talking about W2k. I specifically stated that
"businesses that hadn't moved to W2k". For business, the move from W2k
to XP was similar to the XP to Vista move. There isn't much reason to
do it, and they already have a stable OS. I still have W2k on a few
machines as there isn't any reason to change them out. They do what
they do perfectly.

A lot of businesses never moved to W2k, so when XP came out it was as I
stated, a "no brainer". And your stats listed Windows 95/98/NT, which
I'm sure included W2k. I'd bet the Win9x market at that point was less
than 15%.



--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
news:%23sPSV62xIHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Al of this bashing has been seen before. Unfortunately, Vista appearance
> at the door co-incided with a downturn in the global economy, and was
> badly supported by OEMs and peripheral device manufacturers.
>
> It will be interesting to see what is said about Vista when Windows 7
> appears..

I bet, regurgitated Vista. Maybe call it Siesta to we can Siesta la Vista.
Vista will be known as a turning point in M$ fortunes.

But all the OEMs fault? What, all the OEMs ganging up on Vista to make it a
hated OS? Hardly. Maybe the driver API is not as usable or unstable. Go
figure. With driver signing I once read Vista is one step closer where
Microsoft will charge royalties to driver vendors to sign their drivers.
Each new OS from MS since W2000 has been increasing this DRM, it isn't just
the RIAA stuff here.

BTW, vendor support in the last year for Linux, vastly improved.
 
"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable than
> XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the funds
> implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".

Terry, well put. People are still buying PCs as their batteries die or the
system gets too old. There is also a rise in sales of systems like Eee PC.
That is, alternatives to the M$ OS are emerging. Even Apple is doing great.

From a business perspective, the ONLY reason to go Vista is if you are a
software house writing Vista code. After that, Vista offers a big fat zero
benefit. Just a hole to spend money with no ROI.

I have yet to see one productive tangible thing you can do in Vista, that
you cannot do in XP. Even faster in XP given the same hardware.
 
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
news:O1DvOZ9xIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
> news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> The date and time was 6/5/2008 5:45 PM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
>> pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:SH_1k.8621$gc5.4779@pd7urf2no...
>>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23miKE$1xIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> They were bashing XP prior to Jan 2007. Presently, they are warming up
>>>>> for the arrival of the next incarnation of Windows.
>>>> You are right, there was XP bashing back then. One I remember was
>>>> eXTortion. Because it had more DRM in it, but not nearly as much as
>>>> Vista. Add to it most of that DRM was bypassable inside the first year.
>>>>
>>>> But that aside, it died quickly with the first round of patches and
>>>> inside of 16 months everyone was jumping onto XP without a peep.
>>>> Companies were in full roll outs and going all out XP.
>>>>
>>>> 16 months of Vista, and everyone is still complaining and companies are
>>>> holding out. Long gone are the days where people lined up outside of
>>>> stores at 4am to be the first to get Windows 95. Bet Vista Ultimate
>>>> full retails have dust on them. Microsoft has been on a slide ever
>>>> since with ever increasing resistance to change. Partially due to it's
>>>> own success and partially due to Vista's short comings.
>>>>
>>>> No one held off for Win 98 or WinMe 15 months after Win95. Or at least
>>>> no one I knew. WFWG was inferior to Win95. Vista is just a pile of
>>>> problems for users over XP and offers nothing tangibly new.
>>>>
>>>> But the fact is, XP bashing is no where near the levels of Vista
>>>> bashing. Not even remotely close.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> XP, if you remember, received SP2 which was NOT a simple rollup of
>>> updates. It was a MAJOR rewrite of over 5 million lines of code.
>>>
>>> I also dispute your claims that companies were rolling out XP gleefully
>>> in the early days. Many companies could see no reason to use XP, and
>>> still can't.
>>>
>>
>> Would you care to validate those comments? Businesses that hadn't
>> already moved to W2k moved to XP quickly. The instability of Win9x was a
>> no brainer in a move to XP. "And still can't" is a comment completely
>> off the wall.
>>
>>> Al of this bashing has been seen before. Unfortunately, Vista appearance
>>> at the door co-incided with a downturn in the global economy, and was
>>> badly supported by OEMs and peripheral device manufacturers.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see what is said about Vista when Windows 7
>>> appears..
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
>> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable
>> than XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the
>> funds implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
>> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".
>>
>> --
>> Terry R.
>>
>> ***Reply Note***
>> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
>> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>
>
> Going into 2004, W2k was still holding its own (just a few % below).
>
> "Slow uptake of Windows XP
>
> Thus the announcement to end the products was widely seen as a "forced
> upgrade" strategy. Business and home users alike have been reluctant to
> upgrade to a system with substantially increased hardware requirements. An
> Ottawa-based IT asset analysis tool vendor, AssetMetrix Inc. found that,
> based on 370,000 PCs from 670 companies of different sizes in the US, the
> users of Windows 95/98/NT currently accounted for more than 40 percent of
> the corporate users of all flavors of Windows. Windows XP, which was
> released in January 2001, was used by only 6.6 percent and only 19.8
> percent of the companies had no Windows 95 or 98 systems. Other research
> also supports significant use of the older systems. IT Week reported some
> 35 percent of companies still have Windows 95, 98 or ME (Millennium) on
> some desktop computers.
>
> For household users the picture is not much different. According to the
> Internet search engine Google, in September 2003, 29 percent of Internet
> searches came from computers with Windows 98. Analyst IDC found that there
> are 39 million people using Windows 98 around the world.
>
> It was routinely assumed in the PC industry that the average lifetime of a
> Windows OS installation is around three years. Based on this conception,
> the life of Windows 98 and NT should have been long over. Windows 98 was
> first released to the market in 1998, followed by "98 SE" (Second Edition)
> in 1999. NT was released in 1996. Despite fierce advertising and
> convenient upgrades to Windows XP for those with volume agreements, the
> uptake of the new system has been slow. There are a number of reasons for
> this. The first is the substantial increase in hardware requirements for
> the new system. Faced with the costs of both new licenses from Microsoft
> and new hardware purchases, business and home users were not convinced of
> the benefits of an upgrade. There were also certain problems with the new
> OS in terms of running older applications and, particularly in the case of
> laptop computers, certain hardware compatibility issues.
>
> The release of XP also followed the burst of the financial bubble in the
> software industry in 2001. Companies and ordinary buyers alike soon
> realized that their money could be spent better elsewhere rather than
> upgrading computers that appeared to work just fine. In 2001, US PC sales
> plummeted 12 percent from the year before.
>
> Microsoft appears to have thought it could bypass these objective economic
> facts by simply bullying users into an upgrade. Their decision to pull
> back was based on the realization that an upgrade to XP was not the only
> option facing business and home consumers. No doubt the increased
> publicity of commercial backing for Linux by a number of prominent
> companies, including IBM, played a part in this realization, as did Sun's
> aggressive marketing of their new Linux-based Java Desktop."
>
> Despite all of the above, where some were writing off MS just as they are
> now, XP went on to claim 75% of the OS desktop market.
>
> Throughout the entire period 2001 - 2008, Linux and Mac sales have risen
> by no more than 1% each.
>
> Vista faces exactly the same challenge and, despite the bashing, will win
> through..

Will file this one. In two years we will see.

Me, I bet those Linux and Apple sales double by then. Don't let the
marketing idiots fool you. Eee PC Linux is selling quite well.

BTW, Sun's Java desktop is quite usable too, but I prefer Ubuntu or Fedora
with Compiz/Beryl. But if you are using Solaris, it is quite usable and
easier to master than Vista.
 
"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:%23vkQuA4xIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:SH_1k.8621$gc5.4779@pd7urf2no...
>>
>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23miKE$1xIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> They were bashing XP prior to Jan 2007. Presently, they are warming up
>>> for the arrival of the next incarnation of Windows.
>>
>> You are right, there was XP bashing back then. One I remember was
>> eXTortion. Because it had more DRM in it, but not nearly as much as
>> Vista. Add to it most of that DRM was bypassable inside the first year.
>>
>> But that aside, it died quickly with the first round of patches and
>> inside of 16 months everyone was jumping onto XP without a peep.
>> Companies were in full roll outs and going all out XP.
>>
>> 16 months of Vista, and everyone is still complaining and companies are
>> holding out. Long gone are the days where people lined up outside of
>> stores at 4am to be the first to get Windows 95. Bet Vista Ultimate full
>> retails have dust on them.
>
> Untrue. Both the local Best Buy and Circuit City are sold out of almost
> all Microsoft products...Vista and Office 2007.

At our local Best Buy, the boxed full editions have dust on them. Thee
local small electronics vendor has the full versions as special order. LOL.
 
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:Egc2k.7637$js6.2201@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
> news:%23sPSV62xIHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>> Al of this bashing has been seen before. Unfortunately, Vista appearance
>> at the door co-incided with a downturn in the global economy, and was
>> badly supported by OEMs and peripheral device manufacturers.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see what is said about Vista when Windows 7
>> appears..
>
> I bet, regurgitated Vista. Maybe call it Siesta to we can Siesta la
> Vista. Vista will be known as a turning point in M$ fortunes.
>
> But all the OEMs fault? What, all the OEMs ganging up on Vista to make it
> a hated OS? Hardly. Maybe the driver API is not as usable or unstable.
> Go figure. With driver signing I once read Vista is one step closer where
> Microsoft will charge royalties to driver vendors to sign their drivers.
> Each new OS from MS since W2000 has been increasing this DRM, it isn't
> just the RIAA stuff here.
>
> BTW, vendor support in the last year for Linux, vastly improved.
>


If you dislike MS so much, why are you here? Have you run Vista lately?


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DE941EA0-C35C-4082-BFCE-F7EA3E205EDB@microsoft.com...

> And this ng is not nearly as bad as it was a year ago.

I can only guess at how bad it was.
 
Canuck57 wrote:

>
> There is a glimmer of hope for Microsoft, if Bill Gates wants to give me a
> call will lay out a 10 year plan to keep Microsoft #1. But my idea isn't
> cheap, I want the same as Ballmer's severance.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------

Sure...hahaha...first post your Curriculum Vital for all to see your
qualifications!...LOL!
This should be good!
Frank
 
The date and time was 6/6/2008 8:05 AM, and on a whim, Canuck57 pounded
out on the keyboard:

> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
> news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
>> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable than
>> XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the funds
>> implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
>> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".
>
> Terry, well put. People are still buying PCs as their batteries die or the
> system gets too old. There is also a rise in sales of systems like Eee PC.
> That is, alternatives to the M$ OS are emerging. Even Apple is doing great.
>
> From a business perspective, the ONLY reason to go Vista is if you are a
> software house writing Vista code. After that, Vista offers a big fat zero
> benefit. Just a hole to spend money with no ROI.
>
> I have yet to see one productive tangible thing you can do in Vista, that
> you cannot do in XP. Even faster in XP given the same hardware.
>
>

If MS would have made MSO2007 Vista only like they did with
Office95/Win95, it probably would have helped. I have a few clients
with networks I admin, and the powers that be always want the "latest &
greatest". Those clients are slowly moving to MSO2007, but aren't
interested in Vista. Not that they're gaining anything mind you (which
they admit), they just like new toys. But even those clients have their
default save settings set to "Office 2003" format in Word & Excel.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:O9bDiL%23xIHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was 6/6/2008 6:07 AM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
> pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> The date and time was 6/5/2008 5:45 PM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
>>> pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:SH_1k.8621$gc5.4779@pd7urf2no...
>>>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23miKE$1xIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>> They were bashing XP prior to Jan 2007. Presently, they are warming
>>>>>> up for the arrival of the next incarnation of Windows.
>>>>> You are right, there was XP bashing back then. One I remember was
>>>>> eXTortion. Because it had more DRM in it, but not nearly as much as
>>>>> Vista. Add to it most of that DRM was bypassable inside the first
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that aside, it died quickly with the first round of patches and
>>>>> inside of 16 months everyone was jumping onto XP without a peep.
>>>>> Companies were in full roll outs and going all out XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> 16 months of Vista, and everyone is still complaining and companies
>>>>> are holding out. Long gone are the days where people lined up outside
>>>>> of stores at 4am to be the first to get Windows 95. Bet Vista
>>>>> Ultimate full retails have dust on them. Microsoft has been on a
>>>>> slide ever since with ever increasing resistance to change. Partially
>>>>> due to it's own success and partially due to Vista's short comings.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one held off for Win 98 or WinMe 15 months after Win95. Or at
>>>>> least no one I knew. WFWG was inferior to Win95. Vista is just a
>>>>> pile of problems for users over XP and offers nothing tangibly new.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the fact is, XP bashing is no where near the levels of Vista
>>>>> bashing. Not even remotely close.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> XP, if you remember, received SP2 which was NOT a simple rollup of
>>>> updates. It was a MAJOR rewrite of over 5 million lines of code.
>>>>
>>>> I also dispute your claims that companies were rolling out XP gleefully
>>>> in the early days. Many companies could see no reason to use XP, and
>>>> still can't.
>>>>
>>> Would you care to validate those comments? Businesses that hadn't
>>> already moved to W2k moved to XP quickly. The instability of Win9x was
>>> a no brainer in a move to XP. "And still can't" is a comment completely
>>> off the wall.
>>>
>>>> Al of this bashing has been seen before. Unfortunately, Vista
>>>> appearance at the door co-incided with a downturn in the global
>>>> economy, and was badly supported by OEMs and peripheral device
>>>> manufacturers.
>>>>
>>>> It will be interesting to see what is said about Vista when Windows 7
>>>> appears..
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
>>> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable
>>> than XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the
>>> funds implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
>>> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".
>>>
>>> --
>>> Terry R.
>>>
>>> ***Reply Note***
>>> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
>>> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>>
>>
>> Going into 2004, W2k was still holding its own (just a few % below).
>>
>> "Slow uptake of Windows XP
>>
>> Thus the announcement to end the products was widely seen as a "forced
>> upgrade" strategy. Business and home users alike have been reluctant to
>> upgrade to a system with substantially increased hardware requirements.
>> An Ottawa-based IT asset analysis tool vendor, AssetMetrix Inc. found
>> that, based on 370,000 PCs from 670 companies of different sizes in the
>> US, the users of Windows 95/98/NT currently accounted for more than 40
>> percent of the corporate users of all flavors of Windows. Windows XP,
>> which was released in January 2001, was used by only 6.6 percent and only
>> 19.8 percent of the companies had no Windows 95 or 98 systems. Other
>> research also supports significant use of the older systems. IT Week
>> reported some 35 percent of companies still have Windows 95, 98 or ME
>> (Millennium) on some desktop computers.
>>
>> For household users the picture is not much different. According to the
>> Internet search engine Google, in September 2003, 29 percent of Internet
>> searches came from computers with Windows 98. Analyst IDC found that
>> there are 39 million people using Windows 98 around the world.
>>
>> It was routinely assumed in the PC industry that the average lifetime of
>> a Windows OS installation is around three years. Based on this
>> conception, the life of Windows 98 and NT should have been long over.
>> Windows 98 was first released to the market in 1998, followed by "98 SE"
>> (Second Edition) in 1999. NT was released in 1996. Despite fierce
>> advertising and convenient upgrades to Windows XP for those with volume
>> agreements, the uptake of the new system has been slow. There are a
>> number of reasons for this. The first is the substantial increase in
>> hardware requirements for the new system. Faced with the costs of both
>> new licenses from Microsoft and new hardware purchases, business and home
>> users were not convinced of the benefits of an upgrade. There were also
>> certain problems with the new OS in terms of running older applications
>> and, particularly in the case of laptop computers, certain hardware
>> compatibility issues.
>>
>> The release of XP also followed the burst of the financial bubble in the
>> software industry in 2001. Companies and ordinary buyers alike soon
>> realized that their money could be spent better elsewhere rather than
>> upgrading computers that appeared to work just fine. In 2001, US PC sales
>> plummeted 12 percent from the year before.
>>
>> Microsoft appears to have thought it could bypass these objective
>> economic facts by simply bullying users into an upgrade. Their decision
>> to pull back was based on the realization that an upgrade to XP was not
>> the only option facing business and home consumers. No doubt the
>> increased publicity of commercial backing for Linux by a number of
>> prominent companies, including IBM, played a part in this realization, as
>> did Sun's aggressive marketing of their new Linux-based Java Desktop."
>>
>> Despite all of the above, where some were writing off MS just as they are
>> now, XP went on to claim 75% of the OS desktop market.
>>
>> Throughout the entire period 2001 - 2008, Linux and Mac sales have risen
>> by no more than 1% each.
>>
>> Vista faces exactly the same challenge and, despite the bashing, will win
>> through..
>>
>>
>
> For one, we weren't talking about W2k. I specifically stated that
> "businesses that hadn't moved to W2k". For business, the move from W2k to
> XP was similar to the XP to Vista move. There isn't much reason to do it,
> and they already have a stable OS. I still have W2k on a few machines as
> there isn't any reason to change them out. They do what they do
> perfectly.
>
> A lot of businesses never moved to W2k, so when XP came out it was as I
> stated, a "no brainer". And your stats listed Windows 95/98/NT, which I'm
> sure included W2k. I'd bet the Win9x market at that point was less than
> 15%.
>
>
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.


At the time, XP was trashed just as Vista is being trashed now. It is well
enough documented. For all that was said, it still managed to take 75% of
the market by 2006, which it has more or less held until now.

FUD still being spread is based upon the Vista scenario at the start of its
public life. It did have problems, some of its own, some outside. Many of
the problems have gone away now, but the true MS haters can't let go until
the next Windows is released of course.

As Linux distros improve, they will become more of a force to be reckoned.
As yet, despite being 'free', they are still not polished, and the major
software houses will not work on stuff which they have to give away.

In the meantime, for better or worse, Vista is getting stronger. They say
that Windows 7 will run on present Vista hardware specs. As new machines
replace old, more businesses will be able to upgrade easily, and the
arguments about high hardware upgrade costs will no longer apply.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
The date and time was 6/6/2008 8:56 AM, and on a whim, Mike Hall - MVP
pounded out on the keyboard:

>>
>> For one, we weren't talking about W2k. I specifically stated that
>> "businesses that hadn't moved to W2k". For business, the move from W2k to
>> XP was similar to the XP to Vista move. There isn't much reason to do it,
>> and they already have a stable OS. I still have W2k on a few machines as
>> there isn't any reason to change them out. They do what they do
>> perfectly.
>>
>> A lot of businesses never moved to W2k, so when XP came out it was as I
>> stated, a "no brainer". And your stats listed Windows 95/98/NT, which I'm
>> sure included W2k. I'd bet the Win9x market at that point was less than
>> 15%.
>>
>>
>>

>
> At the time, XP was trashed just as Vista is being trashed now. It is well
> enough documented. For all that was said, it still managed to take 75% of
> the market by 2006, which it has more or less held until now.
>


No, it's quite different. Businesses that already had NT/W2k were
making fun of it, and with good reason. Home users that needed new
hardware made fun of it, asking the question, "Why?". But the bottom
line is, XP was a major leap in the consumer market as far as stability
went.


> FUD still being spread is based upon the Vista scenario at the start of its
> public life. It did have problems, some of its own, some outside. Many of
> the problems have gone away now, but the true MS haters can't let go until
> the next Windows is released of course.


There weren't near the issues moving from Win9x to XP, and nearly zero
issues from W2k to Xp. Heck it seemed that just about every hardware
driver available had a driver for W2k, and almost all of them worked
fine in XP. Can't say that with Vista. Even legacy software support
was better in XP than in Vista.


>
> As Linux distros improve, they will become more of a force to be reckoned.
> As yet, despite being 'free', they are still not polished, and the major
> software houses will not work on stuff which they have to give away.
>
> In the meantime, for better or worse, Vista is getting stronger. They say
> that Windows 7 will run on present Vista hardware specs. As new machines
> replace old, more businesses will be able to upgrade easily, and the
> arguments about high hardware upgrade costs will no longer apply.
>

Vista isn't getting "stronger". MS has laid out a timeline for XP. If
they continued selling XP, I would guess that most users would wait for
Win7 before changing. Forcing an OS doesn't mean it's "stronger". Why
make a move when the platform is basically horizontal?

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:OsCa7j%23xIHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was 6/6/2008 8:05 AM, and on a whim, Canuck57 pounded
> out on the keyboard:
>
>> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:eO7lA04xIHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Don't blame the economy on Vista's failure. The bottom line is there is
>>> no advantage for business to move to it. Vista isn't any more stable
>>> than XP and Vista doesn't run anything better than XP, so why waste the
>>> funds implementing the upgrades? "Badly supported"? I just think the
>>> manufacturers said, "Not going to bother".
>>
>> Terry, well put. People are still buying PCs as their batteries die or
>> the system gets too old. There is also a rise in sales of systems like
>> Eee PC. That is, alternatives to the M$ OS are emerging. Even Apple is
>> doing great.
>>
>> From a business perspective, the ONLY reason to go Vista is if you are a
>> software house writing Vista code. After that, Vista offers a big fat
>> zero benefit. Just a hole to spend money with no ROI.
>>
>> I have yet to see one productive tangible thing you can do in Vista, that
>> you cannot do in XP. Even faster in XP given the same hardware.
>
> If MS would have made MSO2007 Vista only like they did with
> Office95/Win95, it probably would have helped. I have a few clients with
> networks I admin, and the powers that be always want the "latest &
> greatest". Those clients are slowly moving to MSO2007, but aren't
> interested in Vista. Not that they're gaining anything mind you (which
> they admit), they just like new toys. But even those clients have their
> default save settings set to "Office 2003" format in Word & Excel.

I haven't used Microsoft Office for 3 years unless my employer paid for it.
I have been a Open Office ( http://www.openoffice.org/ ) user ever since.
Even at work, loaded it up and just had to remember to save as Xp/W200x
office or export to PDF. No one was any the wiser, as long as I remembered
not to attach the ODF (open document format) file.

My guess is Open Office is growing in popularity. When over at friends and
relatives they ask, is it worth the $$$ to buy office as work will not let
me have a copy? I walk up to their PC, download and install Open Office.
Haven't had anyone remove it yet. Got a case of beer once.
 
Back
Top