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

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?
>
>

What sick FUD spreading POS lying linux troll you are.
Frank

Alias wrote:

> 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.

Can't read huh?

Enough
> said and thanks for stepping in the trap.

Trap? You're far too stupid to set a trap for anyone you dumb POS lying
linux loser.
Frank

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I repeat: LOTS of people use software which is YEARS out of date and totally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

> 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

"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

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
>
>

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

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

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

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> "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..
>
>

2 gigs RAM? Enough said.

Alias