Jump to content

XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market?

Guest Steve Thackery
Guest Steve Thackery
in Tech Help and Discussions

Guest, which answer was the most helpful?

If any of these replies answered your question, please take a moment to click the 'Mark as solution' button on the post with the best answer.
Marking posts as the solution will help other community members find answers to their questions quickly. Thank you for your help!

Featured Replies

Posted

I'm hoping this can be an intelligent debate about Microsoft's marketing,

without it being overrun by the usual bunch of offensive kids and anti-Vista

trolls. OK then.......

 

One of the things Microsoft wants to do is stop selling new XP licenses and

sell Vista licenses instead. I believe the current target for stopping

sales of XP is next month. I vaguely understand they have support cut-off

dates for XP of 2009 and 2014 (I may be wrong about those - but that isn't

central to my argument).

 

The thing is, why is MS to keen to stop selling XP? I've heard a couple of

reasons:

 

1/ They have to get a return on their investment in the development of

Vista.

 

Of course, this can't be right - a sale is a sale, and if they priced XP and

Vista the same, then they get the money whichever the customer chooses.

 

2/ They don't want the burden of supporting XP - with its security

shortcomings - for longer than necessary. Also, they would be supporting

two operating systems instead of one.

 

But this seems a bit weak to me. Microsoft is in charge of its own support

policy - it doesn't HAVE to support an OS past a certain date. They could

change the licensing terms for all new sales of XP after June of this year.

 

For instance, I reckon Microsoft could say something like: "XP will continue

on sale indefinitely, but after the existing support cut-off dates there

will be NO new features, NO bug fixes and we will only consider fixing the

most serious security breaches". I suspect that the support burden on MS

from such a policy would be minimal. They could even reduce it to zero by

not fixing any security breaches, either - "if you have a problem with XP

after the cut-off dates, upgrade to Vista".

 

I'm prepared to bet that LOADS of people would still buy XP on those terms.

After all, LOADS of people still happily use software every day which is no

longer supported. If it does the job, why not? Basically, previous

versions of almost any software are generally unsupported by their vendor.

In fact, Microsoft is probably rather unusual in continuing to provide

support for earlier versions of Office when a later version has been

released.

 

This policy - "buy XP if you insist, but our existing support cut-off dates

remain unchanged" - would be:

 

1/ Good for customers, because they get a free choice whether to buy an old,

stable OS with a familiar interface and a 2009/2014 support cut-off or a

new, fully supported OS with the latest new features.

 

2/ Good for MS, because they continue to sell new licences to contented

customers.

 

Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if

it makes the customer unhappy?

 

In closing, let me just say this. I develop small software applications.

If a customer said to me "I'd like to buy the previous version of Thackery's

Wonder Widget, because I prefer the user interface, and yes, I accept you

won't be doing any more bugfixes on it", I'd sell it to them! Why on earth

not?

 

SteveT

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •
    • Replies 126
    • Views 1.3k
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Popular Days

    "Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message

    news:u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

    > I'm hoping this can be an intelligent debate about Microsoft's marketing,

    > without it being overrun by the usual bunch of offensive kids and

    > anti-Vista trolls. OK then.......

    >

    > One of the things Microsoft wants to do is stop selling new XP licenses

    > and sell Vista licenses instead. I believe the current target for

    > stopping sales of XP is next month. I vaguely understand they have

    > support cut-off dates for XP of 2009 and 2014 (I may be wrong about

    > those - but that isn't central to my argument).

    >

    > The thing is, why is MS to keen to stop selling XP? I've heard a couple

    > of reasons:

    >

    > 1/ They have to get a return on their investment in the development of

    > Vista.

    >

    > Of course, this can't be right - a sale is a sale, and if they priced XP

    > and Vista the same, then they get the money whichever the customer

    > chooses.

    >

    > 2/ They don't want the burden of supporting XP - with its security

    > shortcomings - for longer than necessary. Also, they would be supporting

    > two operating systems instead of one.

    >

    > But this seems a bit weak to me. Microsoft is in charge of its own

    > support policy - it doesn't HAVE to support an OS past a certain date.

    > They could change the licensing terms for all new sales of XP after June

    > of this year.

    >

    > For instance, I reckon Microsoft could say something like: "XP will

    > continue on sale indefinitely, but after the existing support cut-off

    > dates there will be NO new features, NO bug fixes and we will only

    > consider fixing the most serious security breaches". I suspect that the

    > support burden on MS from such a policy would be minimal. They could even

    > reduce it to zero by not fixing any security breaches, either - "if you

    > have a problem with XP after the cut-off dates, upgrade to Vista".

    >

    > I'm prepared to bet that LOADS of people would still buy XP on those

    > terms. After all, LOADS of people still happily use software every day

    > which is no longer supported. If it does the job, why not? Basically,

    > previous versions of almost any software are generally unsupported by

    > their vendor. In fact, Microsoft is probably rather unusual in continuing

    > to provide support for earlier versions of Office when a later version has

    > been released.

    >

    > This policy - "buy XP if you insist, but our existing support cut-off

    > dates remain unchanged" - would be:

    >

    > 1/ Good for customers, because they get a free choice whether to buy an

    > old, stable OS with a familiar interface and a 2009/2014 support cut-off

    > or a new, fully supported OS with the latest new features.

    >

    > 2/ Good for MS, because they continue to sell new licences to contented

    > customers.

    >

    > Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

    > have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    > Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even

    > if it makes the customer unhappy?

    >

    > In closing, let me just say this. I develop small software applications.

    > If a customer said to me "I'd like to buy the previous version of

    > Thackery's Wonder Widget, because I prefer the user interface, and yes, I

    > accept you won't be doing any more bugfixes on it", I'd sell it to them!

    > Why on earth not?

    >

    > SteveT

     

     

    If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be

    obliged to provide full support for it..

     

    --

    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

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >

    >Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

    >have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if

    >it makes the customer unhappy?

    >

     

    Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business partners

    and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping those

    entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    In article <exDFiq0tIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

    Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

    >

    >If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be

    >obliged to provide full support for it..

    >

     

    Why?

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    > If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be

    > obliged to provide full support for it..

     

    On what basis do you make that assertion? How do you define "support"?

    Microsoft defines what it means by "support" in its EULA. It could, with

    perfect legality, sell XP as a "legacy" product with no planned fixes.

     

    At least, that is my understanding.

     

    I was looking at a graphics editor program the other day (can't remember its

    name), which was available in two versions: the current one, which would

    only run on W2K, XP and Vista, and an earlier version for those with

    Win95/98. It was perfectly clear that there was no further support on the

    older version, but it was for sale if you wanted it.

     

    Seems absolutely fair and reasonable to me.

     

    SteveT

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message

    news:eh3Fcy1tIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

    >> If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be

    >> obliged to provide full support for it..

    >

    > On what basis do you make that assertion? How do you define "support"?

    > Microsoft defines what it means by "support" in its EULA. It could, with

    > perfect legality, sell XP as a "legacy" product with no planned fixes.

    >

    > At least, that is my understanding.

    >

    > I was looking at a graphics editor program the other day (can't remember

    > its name), which was available in two versions: the current one, which

    > would only run on W2K, XP and Vista, and an earlier version for those with

    > Win95/98. It was perfectly clear that there was no further support on the

    > older version, but it was for sale if you wanted it.

    >

    > Seems absolutely fair and reasonable to me.

    >

     

     

    Fair and reasonable means nothing to lawyers. Microsoft is a big target.

    That's in the US. In Europe there are laws saying you have to provide

    support for current products. The EULA doesn't trump laws.

     

    --

    Kerry Brown

    MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

    http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    the wharf rat wrote:

    > In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    > Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

    >> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if

    >> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>

    >

    > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    > in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business partners

    > and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping those

    > entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >

     

    Yep, MS is happy and so are the vendors. Two out of three ain't bad, right?

     

    Alias

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    the wharf rat wrote:

    > In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    > Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >

    >>Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

    >>have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >>Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if

    >>it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>

    >

    >

    > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    > in addition to the new operating system.

     

    Stop lying mr rat, that is not a true statement.

    Frank

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Alias wrote:

    > the wharf rat wrote:

    >

    >> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>

    >>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they

    >>> must have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion -

    >>> on why Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next

    >>> month, even if it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>

    >>

    >> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new

    >> software

    >> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft

    >> business partners

    >> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping

    >> those

    >> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>

    >

    > Yep, MS is happy and so are the vendors. Two out of three ain't bad, right?

    >

    > Alias

     

    Get lost! You don't have Vista.

    Loser!

    Frank

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    > In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    > Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>

    >>Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

    >>have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >>Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even

    >>if

    >>it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>

    >

    > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    > in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business

    > partners

    > and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping

    > those

    > entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >

     

     

    I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

     

     

    --

    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

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    news:g0k1ta$gfi$1@reader2.panix.com...

    > In article <exDFiq0tIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

    > Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

    >>

    >>If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be

    >>obliged to provide full support for it..

    >>

    >

    > Why?

    >

     

     

    Apart from the updates, to keep XP alive, MS would have to produce the

    installation media, manuals, packaging, all of which costs.

     

    MS no longer want or need these costs as the employees are required to work

    on Vista, Windows 7, and all of the other current and future product ranges

     

    --

    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

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    > "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    > news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    >> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>>

    >>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

    >>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month,

    >>> even if

    >>> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>

    >>

    >> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    >> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft

    >> business partners

    >> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping

    >> those

    >> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>

    >

    >

    > I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

    >

    >

     

    Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

     

    Alias

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    > Fair and reasonable means nothing to lawyers. Microsoft is a big target.

    > That's in the US. In Europe there are laws saying you have to provide

    > support for current products. The EULA doesn't trump laws.

     

    But it depends how you define "support" and how you define "current".

    "Fixes for major security breaches only" would be fine. Here's another

    approach: "No more fixes to XP, but anyone who buys XP after June 08 gets a

    free upgrade to Vista whenever they want it". That would certainly count as

    support.

     

    Remember, MS wouldn't lose money on it: the alternative is to force you to

    buy a Vista license after June, and if they price them the same, it would

    all be the same to their bottom line.

     

    Simple, then: "Buy XP or Vista, whichever you prefer. The support for

    Vista consists of ongoing bug fixes for five years. The support for XP

    consists of a free update to Vista." I think this WOULD stand up in court,

    especially when you compare it to the alternative: "buy Vista or piss off".

     

    SteveT

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message

    news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

    > Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    >> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    >>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>>>

    >>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they

    >>>> must

    >>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month,

    >>>> even if

    >>>> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>>

    >>>

    >>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    >>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business

    >>> partners

    >>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping

    >>> those

    >>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>>

    >>

    >>

    >> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

    >>

    >>

    >

    > Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

    >

    > Alias

     

    When I bought my XP MCE system (Compaq AMD X2) all you had to do is go to a

    web site, and they sent me Vista Premium 32 bit for it. Never did install

    it. XP MCE was just too stable except for SP3 which I had to rename a DLL

    to get it to boot afterwards. Got it for a good price as at the time Vista

    was rolling in.

     

    I bet if they still produced systems with XP MCE they would fly off the

    shelves even today.

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message

    news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

    > Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    >> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    >>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>>>

    >>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they

    >>>> must

    >>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month,

    >>>> even if

    >>>> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>>

    >>>

    >>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    >>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business

    >>> partners

    >>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping

    >>> those

    >>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>>

    >>

    >>

    >> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

    >>

    >>

    >

    > Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

    >

    > Alias

     

     

    Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles..

     

     

    --

    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

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message

    news:u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

    > I'm hoping this can be an intelligent debate about Microsoft's marketing,

    > without it being overrun by the usual bunch of offensive kids and

    > anti-Vista trolls. OK then.......

     

    Anti-Vista isn't neccessarily anti-Microsoft. Many people try Vista, then

    decide they don't like it. My last purchase was deliberately Vista. I

    wanted to try it and with an open mind. My first impressions were WOW. I

    loved the Aero. I dived right in.

     

    But then as I tried to do things outside of simple email and web surfing, I

    ran into issues. Performance was a biggie. Copy of large files to/from

    disk and over the network, I couldn't believe how long it was taking. Then

    I discovered missing pieces like the policy editor to get Vista working with

    my storage systems. I did eventually get them to map the drives, but had to

    turn security off to do so, which I didn't like and have since re-enabled

    security.

     

    I had at least one piece of software needing upgrade, but I knew that in

    advance. But because I coud resolve the above issues, I deferred making

    Vista my primary workstation. It simply is not ready for me. I also timed

    my purchase a few weeks in advance if SP1 as I thought it would fix more

    issues than it did.

    > One of the things Microsoft wants to do is stop selling new XP licenses

    > and sell Vista licenses instead. I believe the current target for

    > stopping sales of XP is next month. I vaguely understand they have

    > support cut-off dates for XP of 2009 and 2014 (I may be wrong about

    > those - but that isn't central to my argument).

     

    Ford could also stop selling cars and only sell F450's too.

    > The thing is, why is MS to keen to stop selling XP? I've heard a couple

    > of reasons:

    >

    > 1/ They have to get a return on their investment in the development of

    > Vista.

    >

    > Of course, this can't be right - a sale is a sale, and if they priced XP

    > and Vista the same, then they get the money whichever the customer

    > chooses.

     

    It is pretty obvious, Microsoft isn't about choices, it what WeSaySo Corp

    says goes.

    > 2/ They don't want the burden of supporting XP - with its security

    > shortcomings - for longer than necessary. Also, they would be supporting

    > two operating systems instead of one.

     

    Burden? It is seasoned and stable code compared to Vista. They don't have

    to re-write XP or XP x64.... just maintain it with newer drivers and it

    would work for some time yet to come. And it wouldn't take billions and 5

    years to produce like Vista.

    > But this seems a bit weak to me. Microsoft is in charge of its own

    > support policy - it doesn't HAVE to support an OS past a certain date.

    > They could change the licensing terms for all new sales of XP after June

    > of this year.

     

    They could. You could sum up the EULA as you have no rights, Microsoft has

    all rights. You don't have to read the 50KB of it to get the message.

    > For instance, I reckon Microsoft could say something like: "XP will

    > continue on sale indefinitely, but after the existing support cut-off

    > dates there will be NO new features, NO bug fixes and we will only

    > consider fixing the most serious security breaches". I suspect that the

    > support burden on MS from such a policy would be minimal. They could even

    > reduce it to zero by not fixing any security breaches, either - "if you

    > have a problem with XP after the cut-off dates, upgrade to Vista".

     

    Would you buy a car in 2006 knowing you couldn't get get parts and a tune-up

    in 2008?

    > I'm prepared to bet that LOADS of people would still buy XP on those

    > terms. After all, LOADS of people still happily use software every day

    > which is no longer supported. If it does the job, why not? Basically,

    > previous versions of almost any software are generally unsupported by

    > their vendor. In fact, Microsoft is probably rather unusual in continuing

    > to provide support for earlier versions of Office when a later version has

    > been released.

    >

    > This policy - "buy XP if you insist, but our existing support cut-off

    > dates remain unchanged" - would be:

    >

    > 1/ Good for customers, because they get a free choice whether to buy an

    > old, stable OS with a familiar interface and a 2009/2014 support cut-off

    > or a new, fully supported OS with the latest new features.

     

    Most PCs you buy today (2008) will be retired by 2014. 6 years.

    > 2/ Good for MS, because they continue to sell new licences to contented

    > customers.

     

    Good point except for the contented customers part. Vista is a mess in

    contented.

    > Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must

    > have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    > Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even

    > if it makes the customer unhappy?

     

    Not stupid at all. Greedy, over-priced yes. But brilliant.

     

    You buy a PC with Vista. MS sells a license via the OEM. You find out

    Premium or Basic is a insufficient for your needs.

     

    Now Microsoft will sell you a second copy of Ultimate if you stay Vista or

    if you need XP, they sell you a second copy. The second dip.

     

    Now that active Vista development has ceased, they are on to Win7 leaving

    Vista-unfinished into maintenance mode the idea is that people will be so

    sick of Vista, they will blindly buy Win7 right away. The triple dip.

     

    In the end, Microsoft will sell up to 3 OSes for 1 PC bought today.

    > In closing, let me just say this. I develop small software applications.

    > If a customer said to me "I'd like to buy the previous version of

    > Thackery's Wonder Widget, because I prefer the user interface, and yes, I

    > accept you won't be doing any more bugfixes on it", I'd sell it to them!

    > Why on earth not?

     

    Because it forces you onto the Microsoft OS tread mill. Microsoft has

    openly stated, they really want OS changes every 3 years. But the public,

    including business wants a longer and more stable life cycle. XP is in it's

    prime and while not new and flashy, it does not come with Vista beta testing

    problems.

     

    Take EeePC. Microsoft is taking XP out of the closet as Vista is too much

    of a hog to run on a EeePC. And EeePC runs Linux. And EeePC is selling.

    And Microsoft WeSaySo marketing is pissed so many are seeing Linux can and

    does work. Our dependency on Microsoft is artificial and hype.

     

    I am not anti-Vista, it just inst ready. That is why I keep my main desktop

    XP.

     

    Nor am I am anti-Microsoft. While it is my opinion Vista sucks, I have run

    every OS they have except for WinMe from DOS 2.0 forward. I have run many

    others.

     

    And for the billions spent, a so called mature development environment, 5+

    years in development, starting with an existing code base, Microsoft should

    be embarased at Vista performance and quality.

     

    Since you develop small applications, keep your code portable. If Win7 goes

    down like Vista, business isn't going to bite the triple dip, it might be

    the catalyst for appliance PCs based on Linux for $300. In which case, you

    can move faster to keep your customers happy.

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    > "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message

    > news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

    >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    >>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    >>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>>>>

    >>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they

    >>>>> must

    >>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next

    >>>>> month, even if

    >>>>> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>>>

    >>>>

    >>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    >>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft

    >>>> business partners

    >>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with

    >>>> keeping those

    >>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>>>

    >>>

    >>>

    >>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

    >>>

    >>>

    >>

    >> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

    >>

    >> Alias

    >

    >

    > Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles..

    >

    >

     

    So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista.

    Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap.

     

    Alias

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message

    news:%233Ekp$3tIHA.4716@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

    >> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

    >>

    >> Alias

    >

    >

    > Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles..

     

    So did you pay $500+ for a full Ultimate?

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    > Would you buy a car in 2006 knowing you couldn't get get parts and a

    > tune-up in 2008?

     

    Not a good analogy. Unlike a car, software is just bits. Bits never wear

    out. I mean, seriously, you could go into your attic and find that old copy

    of Windows 3.11 and install it on your current machine.

     

    It will have exactly the same strengths and weaknesses, bugs and

    shortcomings as it had when you put it in the attic ten years ago. It never

    needs "parts" or a "tune-up" because it isn't mechanical and it can't wear

    out. It's just bits.

     

    I repeat: LOTS of people use software which is YEARS out of date and totally

    unsupported - in some cases the vendor has disappeared. But guess what? It

    works exactly like it always did (including with the same bugs it always

    had).

     

    That will be true for XP, too. The only thing that could render XP unusable

    is if there were a major rethink of PC hardware. Until then, it will just

    work. It doesn't NEED ongoing support to keep "just working".

     

    I repeat: I honestly can't see any LOGICAL reason why MS shouldn't let you

    continue buying XP indefinitely, PROVIDED the EULA is modified to say

    "support ceases in 2009/2014, so caveat emptor". Then it is perfectly clear

    to the customer exactly what they are buying.

     

    In many ways, it's just like buying a new television with a two year

    guarantee. In effect, the contract with the buyer is that the manufacturer

    will support it against failure for two years. After that they wash their

    hands of it. If it breaks, it's the customer's problem. MS could do

    exactly the same with XP.

     

    And as I said, if it's priced the same as Vista then MS has got your money

    either way. Why should they care whether it's for an XP license or a Vista

    license?

     

    SteveT

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    > In the end, Microsoft will sell up to 3 OSes for 1 PC bought today.

     

    Canuck, I don't think I really buy your "conspiracy theory" version of

    Microsoft's Vista marketing tactics - selling you a crap OS so you have to

    upgrade once or twice more. I think Vista is below par for three reasons:

     

    1/ The current code base has "gone critical" - much of it is top heavy,

    messy, riddled with legacy workarounds and compatibility bodges, and has

    become almost unmaintainable (although see my next note).

     

    2/ MS abandoned the development program for what would have been XP's

    successor in 2003, after having already invested a few years of development

    in it. The reason was Microsoft's belated realisation of the serious

    security flaws in their current OS architecture. In fact Vista was begun

    again, almost from scratch - based in no small part on Server 2003 code. So

    basically Vista was knocked together in a real hurry.

     

    3/ I get the impression that some of the key, top personnel may have moved

    into different roles, leaving the Vista development team somewhat less

    competent that it should have been. For instance, although the UI is better

    than XP's (in my opinion), it is riddled with inelegancies and

    inconstencies, suggesting it really wasn't properly thought through. And

    the file copying debacle is a classic example of incompetence: at RTM is was

    bloodly hopeless, and even now, after SP1, it's still not as good as XP.

    They "fixed" something that nobody thought was broken.

     

    The first two points are easily confirmed just by reading various insider

    blogs. The third is mostly just an impression I've got by reading between

    the lines, and using Vista myself since it came out.

     

    I don't think MS would deliberately release a below-par product, intending

    you to pay again to get a fixed version. I don't think they would take such

    a risky strategy now that there is significant competition in almost every

    area they play in.

     

    The best way to keep customers - I would suggest - is to do what Apple do.

    They release a product which everybody thinks is superb, and make the next

    product even better, and so on. By doing that they build up a committed

    customer base who thing Apple walks on water, and who keep coming back for

    more. I bet MS would like to do that if they could.

     

    I think Microsoft's OS team has lost the plot - no more, no less.

     

    SteveT

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    > in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business

    > partners

    > and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping

    > those

    > entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >

     

    Except when Microsoft starts including products it's partners provide with

    Windows... Zip, Moving Making, Calendar, Sidebar anyone? They can't win.

    They include extra bits and get accused of monopolizing, they don't add

    stuff, so you need to go and buy it, and they're sucking up to business

    partners.

     

    Marc

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    One company where I worked I was assigned to offer technical support for

    products that were no longer produced. The company understood the value of

    keeping "older" customers happy who were waiting for extra money in their

    budget to purchase the company's newest gear. (The gear we designed and

    produced was microprocessor based scientific measuring instruments.) The

    customer who still used our older equipment had to pay for the technical

    support since their warranties expired after 2 years of purchase. The trick

    in getting the older customers to come back to us and purchase the newer gear

    was for the company to design and manufacture gear that was superior to the

    older versions AND superior to the competition's. Eventually the company that

    I worked for could not keep up with the competition. It could not compete

    price-wise and quality-wise in the market place. I had quit my job before the

    company went under.

     

    How this story pertains to Microsoft:

     

    I have XP and Vista. I am slowly beginning to see the superior advantages of

    Vista over XP. It was not immediate because XP pretty much fullfilled my

    computering needs. But Vista is now showing me how I can get some of these

    jobs done faster. The reason I went to Vista was because I saw how Microsoft

    was constantly trying to improve XP. (And they did.) It seemed to me that

    Microsoft was serious about fixing their OS and competing in the marketplace

    and I took a chance on Vista. I'm glad that I did.

     

    Microsoft is at a critical point where they have to keep their current XP

    customers happy.

     

    I figure Microsoft will support XP for several years even if they

    discontinue producing and selling it. Microsoft customers will eventually

    gravitate towards XP or Apple. It would be a humongous marketing blunder for

    Microsoft to leave their XP customers out in the cold.

     

    oscar

     

     

    "Steve Thackery" wrote:

    > > In the end, Microsoft will sell up to 3 OSes for 1 PC bought today.

    >

    > Canuck, I don't think I really buy your "conspiracy theory" version of

    > Microsoft's Vista marketing tactics - selling you a crap OS so you have to

    > upgrade once or twice more. I think Vista is below par for three reasons:

    >

    > 1/ The current code base has "gone critical" - much of it is top heavy,

    > messy, riddled with legacy workarounds and compatibility bodges, and has

    > become almost unmaintainable (although see my next note).

    >

    > 2/ MS abandoned the development program for what would have been XP's

    > successor in 2003, after having already invested a few years of development

    > in it. The reason was Microsoft's belated realisation of the serious

    > security flaws in their current OS architecture. In fact Vista was begun

    > again, almost from scratch - based in no small part on Server 2003 code. So

    > basically Vista was knocked together in a real hurry.

    >

    > 3/ I get the impression that some of the key, top personnel may have moved

    > into different roles, leaving the Vista development team somewhat less

    > competent that it should have been. For instance, although the UI is better

    > than XP's (in my opinion), it is riddled with inelegancies and

    > inconstencies, suggesting it really wasn't properly thought through. And

    > the file copying debacle is a classic example of incompetence: at RTM is was

    > bloodly hopeless, and even now, after SP1, it's still not as good as XP.

    > They "fixed" something that nobody thought was broken.

    >

    > The first two points are easily confirmed just by reading various insider

    > blogs. The third is mostly just an impression I've got by reading between

    > the lines, and using Vista myself since it came out.

    >

    > I don't think MS would deliberately release a below-par product, intending

    > you to pay again to get a fixed version. I don't think they would take such

    > a risky strategy now that there is significant competition in almost every

    > area they play in.

    >

    > The best way to keep customers - I would suggest - is to do what Apple do.

    > They release a product which everybody thinks is superb, and make the next

    > product even better, and so on. By doing that they build up a committed

    > customer base who thing Apple walks on water, and who keep coming back for

    > more. I bet MS would like to do that if they could.

    >

    > I think Microsoft's OS team has lost the plot - no more, no less.

    >

    > SteveT

    >

    >

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message

    news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org...

    > Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message

    >> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

    >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    >>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    >>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they

    >>>>>> must

    >>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why

    >>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month,

    >>>>>> even if

    >>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>

    >>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software

    >>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft

    >>>>> business partners

    >>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping

    >>>>> those

    >>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>>>>

    >>>>

    >>>>

    >>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

    >>>>

    >>>>

    >>>

    >>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

    >>>

    >>> Alias

    >>

    >>

    >> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles..

    >>

    >>

    >

    > So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista. Enough

    > said and thanks for stepping into the trap.

    >

    > Alias

     

     

    Are you on strong medications?

     

    Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running Vista.

    Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would be more than

    enough to run Vista.

     

    Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is it a

    serious gaming machine.

     

    I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista..

     

    --

    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

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    > "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message

    > news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org...

    >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >>> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message

    >>> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

    >>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >>>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    >>>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    >>>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >>>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>>>>>>

    >>>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and

    >>>>>>> they must

    >>>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on

    >>>>>>> why

    >>>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next

    >>>>>>> month, even if

    >>>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>>>>>

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new

    >>>>>> software

    >>>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft

    >>>>>> business partners

    >>>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with

    >>>>>> keeping those

    >>>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>

    >>>>>

    >>>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

    >>>>>

    >>>>>

    >>>>

    >>>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

    >>>>

    >>>> Alias

    >>>

    >>>

    >>> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles..

    >>>

    >>>

    >>

    >> So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista.

    >> Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap.

    >>

    >> Alias

    >

    >

    > Are you on strong medications?

    >

    > Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running

    > Vista. Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would be

    > more than enough to run Vista.

    >

    > Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is it

    > a serious gaming machine.

    >

    > I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista..

    >

     

    Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long

    before it was released.

     

    I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good

    job all by itself and doesn't need my help.

     

    Alias

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message

    news:g0m7ge$4kh$1@aioe.org...

    > Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >> "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message

    >> news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org...

    >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message

    >>>> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

    >>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

    >>>>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

    >>>>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com...

    >>>>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

    >>>>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >>>>>>>>

    >>>>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they

    >>>>>>>> must

    >>>>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on

    >>>>>>>> why

    >>>>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next

    >>>>>>>> month, even if

    >>>>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy?

    >>>>>>>>

    >>>>>>>

    >>>>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new

    >>>>>>> software

    >>>>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft

    >>>>>>> business partners

    >>>>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with

    >>>>>>> keeping those

    >>>>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think.

    >>>>>>>

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>>

    >>>>>

    >>>>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic?

    >>>>>

    >>>>> Alias

    >>>>

    >>>>

    >>>> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles..

    >>>>

    >>>>

    >>>

    >>> So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista.

    >>> Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap.

    >>>

    >>> Alias

    >>

    >>

    >> Are you on strong medications?

    >>

    >> Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running

    >> Vista. Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would be

    >> more than enough to run Vista.

    >>

    >> Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is it a

    >> serious gaming machine.

    >>

    >> I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista..

    >>

    >

    > Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long

    > before it was released.

    >

    > I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good job

    > all by itself and doesn't need my help.

    >

    > Alias

     

     

    But I don't have high end hardware. Single core AMD 3500, and 2gb RAM and a

    256mb nVidia 6600 video card which I bought to play my games because they

    were not good with the motherboard integrated video..

     

    You have no idea what you are talking about, and you make it up as you go

    along. You are a FUD spreader..

     

     

    --

    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

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing