Open Sauce Software
Tasty titbits from people using Linux and other open source software in business.
Tuesday 15 January 2008, 12:51 PM
Do we need a campaign to save XP?
I see that Infoworld has started a campaign to save XP. I'm sure the Linux world will feel a little wry about that one.
The XP-to-Vista transition is a pretty clear example of the way proprietary operatings fail users. Everyone is happy with XP, says Infoworld , and it's got plenty of life in it.
So, Infoworld asks, please can we keep it? The site is running a rather jolly Doomsday clock, a petition, and a blog at SaveXP.com.
Microsoft is pulling the plug (stopping selling XP) at the end of June, and resellers can only go on selling it till the end of 2008. But why is this, if demand is high? And what are the chances of "saving" XP?
Moving people on, is obviously in Microsoft's interest, as more new PCs, mean more profits (though we've seen elsewhere that in many circumstances, the familiar and trusted XP commands a higher price than most versions of Vista). Infoworld makes the parallel with windows Millennium edition (though the number of users and the amount of development cost was far smaller, in that case.
Unlike previous Windows versions, Microsoft could build a business model around keeping XP going more or less forever. It's got better copyright protection than previous versions, so XP users would be likely to have paid money that will reach Microsoft.
But fundamentally, Microsoft upgrade cycles don't fit well with what people want in PCs. In the early days of IT, new versions were necessary, because the technology changed rapidly and radically. If I remember rightly, I upgraded to Windows 95 so I could use a CD drive, moved on to Windows 2000 so I could use USB, and to XP for stability, roll-back and automatic online upgrades.
Now, new features can be added easily. A PC is like a VCR or a maybe a fridge, and I'd rather it stayed as stable as possible. I don't want to have to get a new VCR every year (though with writeable DVDs, Blu-Ray, and hard disks, htere's pressure to do so. We certainly don't want to replace our fridges.
It's extremely Ironic that, while killing it off for business users with one hand, Microsoft is thinking of allowing XP to live on the OLPC XO - a laptop which originally chose Linux to bail out of Microsoft's expensive upgrade cycles.
The challenge now is for Microsoft to create a model that actually delivers what users want, at a level of cost and disruption they are prepared to accept.
Linux - and the basic maturing of technology - has set this challenge, because finally, there are alternatives.
PreviousComments on this post
Thanks for reminding me of a few things. Previous Windows upgrades have indeed been motivated by needing support for USB, FireWire, Wireless Networking and the like. As I have mentioned recently, I have yet to see a "compelling need" for upgrading to Vista, although I have come across what I might term a "repelling need" - my new laptop has Intel Turbo Memory, which is supposed to speed up booting and disk operations, and is only supported with Vista. But I could never tell that it was doing anything at all, so not having it when running XP Pro on the same laptop isn't exactly killing me.
Thinking about this reminded me of one other thing Windows upgrades have always been good at - soaking up enough of the PC speed increases that the overall experience has remained fairly constant! Vista is no slouch in this department, either, as it seems to turn my Core 2 Duo laptop into the functional equivalent of my older AMD Turion (single) running XP. It would be interesting to see a list, or even better a graph, of Windows Versions and Minimum System Requirements...
I wouldn't hold your breath re Turbo Memory's benefits. Sony and HP rejected the technology for a while at least...
Thanks for the tip, David. I would have to agree with Sony in saying that the current release of Vista gets no discernible benefit from the Turbo Memory. I'll add this to my list of things to be looked at when Vista SP1 comes out, to see if that makes a difference.
"Microsoft could build a business model around keeping XP going more or less forever"
A great idea indeed, another area they could exploit is support; standard (free) XP support was supposed to expire in december 2006, Microsoft can make some money by selling support contracts to businesses that still use XP, this is money they can't make on Vista users since Vista still has that 5 year free support.
XP's popularity amongst users would help a great deal, it certainly has a lot of life left in it!
A great entry Peter.
I'll have to agree with you on the reasons for upgrading, bigger hdds, USB support. Personally I've always gone for the next version to feed my gaming habit.
Now most games (exclusing Microsoft ones of course) and software is being released on both platforms (XP and Vista), so the drive to upgrade isn't as big as it used to be.
Additionally as XP has been around for quite some time and the total number of home users that bought their first PC with XP installed is vastly greater than in previous Windows versions.
Most users want to feel comfortable in using their PC, It may have taken them some time to become familiar with XP, I fail to see how forcing them to a completely new OS is a ideal business solution.
Save XP (words i never thought i'd utter)
If customers can force MS to stretch out Xp for a bit longer by refusing to buy new pc's after June(just like they did in October/November.) And if Microsoft then rolls new Vienna earlier than expected ie 2009 then may only have to wait just over a year. And Vista could be consigned to the ME bin as you suggest.
Check out vienna:
http://www.windows7screenshots.com/
There appear to be several different looks/themes so I wonder if you can choose a theme that appeals to you. For example the one that looks more like XP for instance.
I'm interested to know why Vienna will be a good replacement. I wonder if we've reached the stage where it's better to extend and improve what we have instead of the old model of replacements.
Peter
Is it the "grass is always greener" syndrome? The NEXT version is always going to be "better". I've said in my blog that I really want Vista to be better than XP, I've spent a lot of time testing, tuning, and continuing to run it long after I knew that XP was faster and more stable. Are we all now just assuming, or hoping, that MS will "get it right" the next time?
jw
One thing that XP doesnt do very well is Workgroup sharing.
Vista has made it easier to setup and more stable (remember PC's or shared printers that would suddenly drop off the network every now and again.)
Vista might be good in the future but the image is already tarnished.
Therefore I think MS will bring in Vienna as a marketing rebranding exercise: a bit like Virgin taking over Norhern Rock and rebranding it Virgin Money.
Additionally the radical change in menu systems and look alienated people therefore having a theme that looks, and is organised, more like XP, should allow a more stepped changed. Users can then graduate onto the more (dare I say it) "mac-like" organisation after when they feel comfortable.
