"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.