Windows XP forever

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. 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?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 14, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    message news:h3hfse$pjm$...
    > 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: (valid for 30 days
    min probably much longer).
     
    Alan, Jul 15, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <h3j65b$hl$>, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 15, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    message news:h3j7vv$q2t$...
    > In message <h3j65b$hl$>, 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: (valid for 30 days
    min probably much longer).
     
    Alan, Jul 15, 2009
    #4
  5. In message <h3jdav$9sn$>, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 15, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    message news:h3jqu9$5d1$...
    > In message <h3jdav$9sn$>, 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: (valid for 30 days
    min probably much longer).
     
    Alan, Jul 15, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Alan wrote:
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:h3hfse$pjm$...
    >> 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.
     
    Enkidu, Jul 16, 2009
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Stankus

    Mark thread read forever.

    Mark Stankus, Apr 28, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    516
    Leonidas Jones
    Apr 28, 2004
  2. Al. C
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,560
    Travis Evans
    Mar 27, 2005
  3. Lady Rhyanon
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    55,012
    fireflambe
    Feb 24, 2011
  4. Patrick Dunford
    Replies:
    138
    Views:
    2,235
    Damon Nomad
    Oct 7, 2004
  5. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    432
Loading...

Share This Page