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

"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...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

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

> 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

"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.

"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...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"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.

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

"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?

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..
>
>

Ah, so you bought a high end machine in preparation for Vista. Enough
said and thanks for stepping in the trap.

Alias

Canuck57 wrote:
> "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?
>
>

He got it free due to being a known MS brown nose.

Alias