On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 18:32 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:42:28 +0000, Chris Cox wrote:
>
> > But.. my point is what is RIGHT for Microsoft.
>
> So what's right for Microsoft is to force customers to use a product known
> to not work? Even Microsoft isn't that dumb.
The product DOES work... it just doesn't work as well as you want
it to. Arguably, Me worked as well and Microsoft considered it a
product too.
>
> > And I believe the original
> > proposal was that Microsoft would go running back to XP... and that's
just
> > not going to happen.
>
> No, that's not the proposal at all. Microsoft can keep touting Vista all
> they want. They can keep improving it and telling people why they should
> upgrade to Vista. If they want to even make their own hardware (keyboards
> & mice) only work with Vista that's even fine. But what they need to
do
> is extend this June 30 deadline. It's dumb. It's pointless. OEMs are
> finding loopholes around it. It's doing no good for anyone.
Software companies, including Novell for example, make a living by
doing FORCED upgrades. It's the sw motto and business plan. If
1.0 has served you well for the past 20 years, why upgrade to
version 2.0?
>
> > Best thing is for force (as much as possible) people to Vista.
>
> That doesn't do anything other than give people something that simply
> doesn't work and has worse performance than XP. I'm not talking about old
> hardware, either. Dell sent the wrong laptop to my wife, so we're playing
> with this one until they send the correct one. Core 2 Duo T7250, 2GB RAM,
> SATA HD. Performance shouldn't be a problem with this guy yet Vista is
> much noticeably slower on this machine than her old P4 running XP.
Again, Vista DOES work. And for the majority, it works just fine.
There are some minority cases where it doesn't work, and even less
if you remove the dependency of driver manufacturers that are either
no longer supporting their devices or have simply faded away.
Is it slower? In some ways, definitely. There are some cases where
it is faster though. But that's a refinement issue for Microsoft
to work on. Was Windows XP faster than your Windows 98? Doubt it
seriously. Did you have to upgrade your computer (or purchase a new
one) in order to run XP? Very likely.
>
> That is not the best thing for anyone. All it will do is force people to
> look even more at alternatives, especially Mac. Driving away customers is
> not in Microsoft's best interests.
Again... I actually enjoy the mess since I'm a Linux advocate. Mac is
just another Microsoft as far as I'm concerned.
The Microsoft monopoly isn't going to go away easily. Microsoft
has done these kinds of forced upgrades for many years... people
whine for a bit and then they hand their wallets and hearts over
to Microsoft.
But as you mentioned, there will be some who are not so easily
enslaved.... (I would love to see a revolution... but it won't
happen this time around).
>
> > The problem is that there appears to be some kind of loophole that
allows
> > people to get a Vista COA yet have XP installed. I think that long
term,
> > that is a bad idea for both Microsoft and the end user.
>
> It is the only good solution for both Microsoft and the end user under
> current conditions until such time that M$ realizes they must extend the
> deadline out for purchasing XP. The deadline for purchasing new licenses
> needs to be extended at least until the middle of next year while XP
> support needs to be extended to at least 2010 (the current ETA for Windows
> 7).
>
In all fairness, Microsoft extended the OEM vendor time frame by six
months already. No... it's time for Microsoft to either "put up" or
"shut up".... time for them to declare Vista is their future (for
now).
Can't comment about "Windows 7"...
|