Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Windows XP forever

Reply
Thread Tools

Windows XP forever

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2009
There's no other way to describe it: the Windows market has calcified.

When people expressed widespread reluctance about upgrading to Windows
Vista, a lot of us put that down to seeming inadequacies in the new OS--
resource-hungry, slow, possibly even unreliable. Certainly a lot of
compatibility problems. But really those were just excuses--apart from the
compatibility issue. XP has been around for so long that it has become the
implicit standard for Windows users. It has become THE version of Windows.
The new features offered by Vista simply weren't worth the cost in
compatibility problems.

The proof is Windows 7 itself. In spite of Microsoft's attention to the
perceived drawbacks of Vista, it looks like people are still unenthusiastic
about upgrading to it
<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135465/Survey_6_in_10_companies_to_skip_Windows_7>.
The last-ditch inclusion of "Windows XP mode" was the final admission of
defeat: there was simply no way to offer full compatibility with XP, except
by continuing to run XP itself. But why pay money to upgrade to something
that is exactly the same as what you've already got?

So Microsoft's attempts to kill off XP will ultimately prove to be a career-
limiting move. Customers will continue to exercise "downgrade rights" on new
machines for as long as they can.

After that--what?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2009
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
message news:h3hfse$pjm$(E-Mail Removed)...
> There's no other way to describe it: the Windows market has
> calcified.
>
> When people expressed widespread reluctance about upgrading to
> Windows
> Vista, a lot of us put that down to seeming inadequacies in the new
> OS--
> resource-hungry, slow, possibly even unreliable. Certainly a lot of
> compatibility problems. But really those were just excuses--apart
> from the
> compatibility issue. XP has been around for so long that it has
> become the
> implicit standard for Windows users. It has become THE version of
> Windows.
> The new features offered by Vista simply weren't worth the cost in
> compatibility problems.
>
> The proof is Windows 7 itself. In spite of Microsoft's attention to
> the
> perceived drawbacks of Vista, it looks like people are still
> unenthusiastic
> about upgrading to it
> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135465/Survey_6_in_10_companies_to_skip_Windows_7>.
> The last-ditch inclusion of "Windows XP mode" was the final
> admission of
> defeat: there was simply no way to offer full compatibility with XP,
> except
> by continuing to run XP itself. But why pay money to upgrade to
> something
> that is exactly the same as what you've already got?
>
> So Microsoft's attempts to kill off XP will ultimately prove to be a
> career-
> limiting move. Customers will continue to exercise "downgrade
> rights" on new
> machines for as long as they can.
>
> After that--what?
>


I think they have done exactly the right thing.

Microsoft's great strength in the corporate market is their commitment
to support their customers - something the open source community
doesn't care about because of course they don't have any customers -
no one is paying them anything.

This makes resellers and support companies more likely to encourage
their customers to choose MS than open source, since they, in turn,
want to be able to support their customers (which they do have even if
they are using / supporting open source software).

Hence MS' support for legacy systems and backwards compatibility has
been one of their great strengths over the years (compare for Apple's
attitude that you upgrade and if your legacy apps don't work, well its
just tough - hence their market is mostly home users and the clueless
who don't care or don't know about the hidden costs of changing
applications).

The downside for MS has been that each successive OS has gotten more
bloated in order to support that backwards compatibility.

By taking XP compatibility out of Win 7 and 'virtualising' it, they
will be able to remove a lot of code from the core OS and only have it
run / available if actually required by the user.

I would guess that the next version of Windows (8 ?) might be 64 bit
only, but with a virtualised Vista and / or Win 7 32 bit version, and
potentially XP as well, available to support continued backwards
compatibility, whilst allowing their customers to use the more up to
date OS at the same time - win win for MS and their customer.

Alan.

--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2009
In message <h3j65b$hl$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan wrote:

> Microsoft's great strength in the corporate market is their commitment
> to support their customers ...


If that were true, they would never have tried inflicting Windows Starter
Edition on the market.

> Hence MS' support for legacy systems and backwards compatibility has
> been one of their great strengths over the years ...


Difficult to reconcile that with the reality that compatibility headaches
are the single biggest reason why people can't be bothered to upgrade.

> By taking XP compatibility out of Win 7 and 'virtualising' it, they
> will be able to remove a lot of code from the core OS and only have it
> run / available if actually required by the user.


Unfortunately, no. They are DOUBLING the amount of code that the system is
going to have to load--two complete, separate OSes instead of just one.

Virtualization doesn't solve the real problem.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2009
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
message news:h3j7vv$q2t$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <h3j65b$hl$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan wrote:
>
>> Microsoft's great strength in the corporate market is their
>> commitment
>> to support their customers ...

>
> If that were true, they would never have tried inflicting Windows
> Starter
> Edition on the market.
>


You'll have to wait and see how many people buy it.


>> Hence MS' support for legacy systems and backwards compatibility
>> has
>> been one of their great strengths over the years ...

>
> Difficult to reconcile that with the reality that compatibility
> headaches
> are the single biggest reason why people can't be bothered to
> upgrade.
>
>> By taking XP compatibility out of Win 7 and 'virtualising' it, they
>> will be able to remove a lot of code from the core OS and only have
>> it
>> run / available if actually required by the user.

>
> Unfortunately, no. They are DOUBLING the amount of code that the
> system is
> going to have to load--two complete, separate OSes instead of just
> one.
>


You're missing the point - deliberately I know

Two separate sets of code are much simpler to maintain that one large
one.

Alan.

--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: (E-Mail Removed) (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2009
In message <h3jdav$9sn$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan wrote:

> Two separate sets of code are much simpler to maintain that one large
> one.


It's ignorance, Jim, but not as we know it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2009
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
message news:h3jqu9$5d1$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <h3jdav$9sn$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan wrote:
>
>> Two separate sets of code are much simpler to maintain that one
>> large
>> one.

>
> It's ignorance, Jim, but not as we know it.
>


"I often find that people start resorting to personal attacks when
they find
themselves on the losing end of an argument."


--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: (E-Mail Removed) (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
Alan wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
> message news:h3hfse$pjm$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> There's no other way to describe it: the Windows market has
>> calcified.
>>
>> When people expressed widespread reluctance about upgrading to
>> Windows Vista, a lot of us put that down to seeming inadequacies in
>> the new OS-- resource-hungry, slow, possibly even unreliable.
>> Certainly a lot of compatibility problems. But really those were
>> just excuses--apart from the compatibility issue. XP has been
>> around for so long that it has become the implicit standard for
>> Windows users. It has become THE version of Windows. The new
>> features offered by Vista simply weren't worth the cost in
>> compatibility problems.
>>
>> The proof is Windows 7 itself. In spite of Microsoft's attention to
>> the perceived drawbacks of Vista, it looks like people are still
>> unenthusiastic about upgrading to it
>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135465/Survey_6_in_10_companies_to_skip_Windows_7>.
>>
>>
>> The last-ditch inclusion of "Windows XP mode" was the final
>> admission of defeat: there was simply no way to offer full
>> compatibility with XP, except by continuing to run XP itself. But
>> why pay money to upgrade to something that is exactly the same as
>> what you've already got?
>>
>> So Microsoft's attempts to kill off XP will ultimately prove to be
>> a career- limiting move. Customers will continue to exercise
>> "downgrade rights" on new machines for as long as they can.
>>
>> After that--what?
>>

This sounds familiar! Oh, yes, it's almost word for word what some
people were saying when XP came out.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Computer hangs forever at Windows is Shutting Down screen Lady Rhyanon Computer Support 21 02-24-2011 03:04 PM
there are too many warnings (you are about to....etc etc forever) after installing Firefox trevor_smithson@yahoo.com Firefox 2 10-13-2005 07:35 PM
Second instance of FF takes forever to load Al. C Firefox 2 03-27-2005 03:39 AM
Why should MS provide free support for Windows 98 forever? Patrick Dunford NZ Computing 138 10-07-2004 03:53 AM
Mark thread read forever. Mark Stankus Firefox 1 04-28-2004 08:24 PM



Advertisments