|
| | | | 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.......
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).
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
2/ Good for MS, because they continue to sell new licences to contented
customers.
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?
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?
SteveT
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Steve Thackery
If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be
obliged to provide full support for it..
--
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.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Steve Thackery
In article ,
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.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Mike Hall - MVP
In article ,
Why?
|
| |
| | | | |
On what basis do you make that assertion? How do you define "support"?
Microsoft defines what it means by "support" in its EULA. It could, with
perfect legality, sell XP as a "legacy" product with no planned fixes.
At least, that is my understanding.
I was looking at a graphics editor program the other day (can't remember its
name), which was available in two versions: the current one, which would
only run on W2K, XP and Vista, and an earlier version for those with
Win95/98. It was perfectly clear that there was no further support on the
older version, but it was for sale if you wanted it.
Seems absolutely fair and reasonable to me.
SteveT
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Steve Thackery
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.
--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: the wharf rat
Yep, MS is happy and so are the vendors. Two out of three ain't bad, right?
Alias
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: the wharf rat
Stop lying mr rat, that is not a true statement.
Frank
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Alias
Get lost! You don't have Vista.
Loser!
Frank
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: the wharf rat
I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP..
--
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.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
| |
| |
|