Seems that they forgot to mention that you can only downgrade if you have a system with an OEM copy of Vista.
If you buy Vista, then you cannot downgrade to XP. So, it seems that the way it was worded is essentially a lie. You cannot buy Vista and downgrade to XP. But, you can buy a new computer and downgrade to XP. That's a pretty big difference.
For those questioning whether or not MS can survive another 9 or 10 years, the fate is in their hands. I am not a MS fan, but, I will admit that they do have a few decent products. Their main problem is that they spend WAY WAY WAY to much time trying to copy and emulate everyone else. It is known how they will actually spend days, weeks, months, and years sitting around studying everyone else's software programs and OS's and figuring out what they can copy and use. That is this company's biggest problem. They are no longer being innovative. Instead of copying everyone else they need to take that time and develop something of their own that is unique. That is the ONLY way that company will survive. Windows 7 so far is an extremely bloated version of the iPhone OS. It's simply not impressive. Where's the innovation and unique features? And from the video I saw, it was very very clumsy then the user was manipulating pictures etc. I was not impressed. Vista was not ready, and this announcement sadly proves that. Vista was probably another 2 years away from an actual mainstream release, which, in all honesty, is very sad. That means that it would have taken them almost a decade to produce Vista.. and that's way too long. And, I'm not saying this as a fan boy, but a lot of the touted features of Vista are old news and copied from other operating systems, not just Mac OS. This goes back to what I said in the beginning: If MS wants to survive, they need to quit copying and start being innovative. They need to think outside of the box. If they do copy an idea, they need to make it better instead of trying to mimic other's functionality (ex: their side bar is the biggest joke of vista. it's useless and takes up way too much screen space. They tried to mimic the mac os dock and they failed at it, horribly failed).
I for one would love to see Mac OS become the new world standard, but at the same time, competition is good and important for business and I'd also hate to see MS fail and go away. This is a sad announcement for MS... instead of promoting their newest OS, they're promoting their almost a decade old OS, XP...
Seems that they forgot to mention that you can only downgrade if you have a system with an OEM copy of Vista.
If you buy Vista, then you cannot downgrade to XP. So, it seems that the way it was worded is essentially a lie. You cannot buy Vista and downgrade to XP. But, you can buy a new computer and downgrade to XP. That's a pretty big difference.
Not to sound stupid, but don't they imply that? You'd need to have XP at a minimum to upgrade to Vista, as older OS's would have too old of hardware to run Vista. So, a user buying Vista would not need to downgrade to XP for 2 reasons: 1) They'd already have the XP disks that came with their computer, so they'd already have XP 2) If they're buying and upgrading to Vista through purchased disks, they want Vista, that's why they're buying it. So, they're not lying to the customers, you're just not seeing the whole picture.
EDIT: And as for those who build a custom computer themselves, they can either buy Vista or XP to install. And the user base for those that build their own systems is so small that the argument that they can't downgrade to XP is pretty much irrelevant.
They are no longer being innovative. Instead of copying everyone else they need to take that time and develop something of their own that is unique. That is the ONLY way that company will survive.
There are several philosophies/methods of developing product.
(A) Innovate... where you "make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products"
or...
(B) Invent..."create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of"
Microsoft and Apple both innovate, but Apple manages to "invent" slightly more than Microsoft, sometimes to their detriment. The advantage of innovating means that you only have to improve something that exists in the marketplace (i.e.: has already been accepted by consumers).
The iPhone was innovative because it combined a number of previously proven ideas/technologies into one product which seemed unique in the marketplace.
Having said all that, it is obviously becoming far more difficult for Apple to invent new products because every technology company is studying their methods... with few blockbuster products to show for it so far.
I don't think downgrade rights are anything new. I think Windows XP Pro was offered with downgrade rights to Windows 2000 Pro. Maybe the same thing with 2000 to NT 4. I have a notebook computer that had XP Pro and 2000 Pro.
I can't recall the exact OS(es) but I think it was NT4 that had earlier versions of Windows on the install CD.
The real question now is, can Microsoft survive the next 9 or 10 years???
Of course they can. Microsoft owns the business market. Name one major corporation that doesn't rely on Exchange servers, Office, Outlook, etc.
And so what if some people dislike Vista? All those "IT professionals," bloggers, etc. make up an extremely vocal minority. The vast majority of Vista users have no issues with it, and this is how it works with every Windows release. Just like when XP came out, it was fine for the vast majority of people, but a few claimed (incorrectly) that 98 was better.
There are several philosophies/methods of developing product.
(A) Innovate... where you "make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products"
or...
(B) Invent..."create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of"
Microsoft and Apple both innovate, but Apple manages to "invent" slightly more than Microsoft, sometimes to their detriment. The advantage of innovating means that you only have to improve something that exists in the marketplace (i.e.: has already been accepted by consumers).
The iPhone was innovative because it combined a number of previously proven ideas/technologies into one product which seemed unique in the marketplace.
Having said all that, it is obviously becoming far more difficult for Apple to invent new products because every technology company is studying their methods... with few blockbuster products to show for it so far.
To me, innovative means invent. So when I said to be innovative, I really meant that they need to invent/bring new ideas to the table, which they really haven't done since windows 95.
Frankly I feel bad for the PC companies that are stuck with windows. Which brings up the question... Why isn't there more OS options for them other than Linux? Not to diss linux, but I tried to use Ubuntu Studio with no success whatsoever. I would figures the technologically advanced Japan or Europe would have created a better alternative by now. I would have even figured that big companies like Sony or HP would have created a better OS given the fact that windows is such a huge failure and that it devalues their products.
Is it really that hard to create a better OS alt. for PC?
..."But some enterprises said wait and see, we don't want to adopt early, but that's over cos of XP, and our eco-system!"
"If they have been waiting, no more hesitating, when they see improvements in productivity, the desktop and mobility, they'll say XP, gotta get me some".
Wow, Microsoft sales team rocks, and they are going to keep on rocking with XP.
Is it really that hard to create a better OS alt. for PC?
Yes and no. Yes in that it takes a lot of time, man power, and a lot of money if you want to get it right, especially if you are starting from scratch. No in that, some parts of the OS can be cut and paste from other OS's or they can use GNU licensed pieces. Also, there is no guarantee that it will pay off. Case in point, OS/2 by IBM. IBM abandoned it, it wasn't worth the money or time to develop it.
I just think a lot of people like Microsoft bashing. I am not a fan of them, they are pathetic. They are arguably the biggest name in technology, but they have innovated and delivered NOTHING worthwhile since the internet boom. They were in the perfect position to be Google, or Yahoo or Facebook or any other of the big companies that have been successful since the boom, but they have basically nothing in this regard, and certainly nothing new or ground breaking.
That said, in my opinion, Vista is WAY better than XP. It is 100 times more secure and even though it annoys me, it has all its security features on by default which should protect all the people out there that don't know what they are doing.
It is slower, no doubt, but what can you expect for the next operating system after 6 years. Go buy a new computer if it's slow, it must be about time anyway.
Many little bugs and annoyances than exist in XP have been fixed in Vista and in my opinion, they really made a great stab at improving what they had.
There are companies that don't want to swap, but that's not because Vista is crap, it's because their sys admins are lazy bastards and don't want to maintain two systems.
As I said in the beginning, I don't like Microsoft. But I think people should give them a bit of slack on this one, and give them some credit. Operating systems is arguably the only thing the company has ever contributed to in terms of innovation and bringing something new to the table.
Anyone that has been following technology over the past 8 months has seen Microsoft backtracking on Vista. Now every company has to go downhill at some point. The problem is that they haven't shown anyone what they can do to correct the problems they are currently having.
They are throwing Windows 7 out there early to draw attention away from Vista, but they haven't shown in any way that Windows 7 will be better than Vista, or even XP. Touch screens.... big whoop. That means nothing to most people.
Microsoft tries to please everyone, and when you do that you wind up sinking in quicksand. They need an OS written from scratch, and unless they are working on it with the utmost in secrecy, Microsoft will keep losing market share for the next 10 years.
I have a machine running Vista and it's okay. Not the fastest machine around, but it was pretty much the sweet spot last year (Core 2 Duo 2.4/2gb/nividia 7600). Vista runs fine and I can't complain too much (after turning off the security warning feature). Vista has a heavier feel than Mac OS X and the sidebar thing (it's name escapes me) takes up a chunk of space on smaller monitors. I prefer using my Mac now because I've gotten used to the keyboard short cuts and prefer the stronger unix command line. In addition I'm using Mac only software (Aperture).
Companies are reluctant to switch for a number of reasons, my company has a couple thousand pentium 4 machines with 512mb of ram. They get by with XP, but Vista wouldn't run well at all. Once you upgrade the people with the newer computers, everyone else wants a Vista computer. And it always turns out the people that don't want the new OS are the ones with the new computers.
Many people get set in their ways and don't want to have to learn the new interface features. It's a huge cost to train a thousand users on a new OS when the current one works fine, a huge cost if you don't have training and your users become less productive while they're learning.
The operating system doesn't really make you productive, it's the applications you use. Try it sometime, load up DOS in a VM...unless you have some app to run, it's pretty boring. Even OS X, take away your network connection and bring up a clean install of OS X and unless you're into writing with TextEdit and keeping a calendar, not much to do.
Microsoft has a recent habit of making dramatic changes to the user interface. Vista does a number on the Windows users, but check out the new Office for Windows, a lot of feet dragging going on there. Is the new Office interface more productive? Maybe, but it's a steep learning curve for those that don't do well with change. There are some hidden gems though, Excel handles vastly larger worksheets.
Think Apple can do no wrong? Remember that every time Mail.app changes people are upset. Remember the MacOS 9 to OS X transition? People complain about everything new and different, change might be good, but humans aren't so good at accepting it.
Microsoft tries to please everyone, and when you do that you wind up sinking in quicksand. They need an OS written from scratch, and unless they are working on it with the utmost in secrecy, Microsoft will keep losing market share for the next 10 years.
Trying to be everything to everyone is certainly stretching them pretty badly.
Microsoft is always concerned with backwards compatibility. You can run a DOS program from 1988 on a brand new Vista computer. Windows APIs from the the start all work.
Microsoft gives away VirtualPC. What they need to do is build WindowsLite and package it up with VirtualPC and ship it in Windows7 or probably for them Windows 8 or 9. Start clean and strip out everything but the win32/win64 apis (most modern apps should still run). If an app needs to run with Windows3.1 apis or is a DOS app it can be run in "WindowsLite."
I agree they need to start fresh, but they can't succeed without application support. They would extend support for the old OS because of customer demand and inadvertently kill the new OS in doing so, hurting the developers that took the jump.
Problem is, Microsoft has never written an OS from scratch. They bought DOS by acquiring Seattle Computer Products, who wrote it. (It was a probably-illegal unauthorized 16-bit port of CP/M anyway.) Then when Scully gave them the Macintosh UI, they still weren't capable of even copying it competently. Anyone who's holding their breath waiting for them to write a whole new, game-changing OS from scratch is going to get awfully dizzy!
Comments
The real question now is, can Microsoft survive the next 9 or 10 years???
....no.
If you buy Vista, then you cannot downgrade to XP. So, it seems that the way it was worded is essentially a lie. You cannot buy Vista and downgrade to XP. But, you can buy a new computer and downgrade to XP. That's a pretty big difference.
I for one would love to see Mac OS become the new world standard, but at the same time, competition is good and important for business and I'd also hate to see MS fail and go away. This is a sad announcement for MS... instead of promoting their newest OS, they're promoting their almost a decade old OS, XP...
Seems that they forgot to mention that you can only downgrade if you have a system with an OEM copy of Vista.
If you buy Vista, then you cannot downgrade to XP. So, it seems that the way it was worded is essentially a lie. You cannot buy Vista and downgrade to XP. But, you can buy a new computer and downgrade to XP. That's a pretty big difference.
Not to sound stupid, but don't they imply that? You'd need to have XP at a minimum to upgrade to Vista, as older OS's would have too old of hardware to run Vista. So, a user buying Vista would not need to downgrade to XP for 2 reasons: 1) They'd already have the XP disks that came with their computer, so they'd already have XP 2) If they're buying and upgrading to Vista through purchased disks, they want Vista, that's why they're buying it. So, they're not lying to the customers, you're just not seeing the whole picture.
EDIT: And as for those who build a custom computer themselves, they can either buy Vista or XP to install. And the user base for those that build their own systems is so small that the argument that they can't downgrade to XP is pretty much irrelevant.
They are no longer being innovative. Instead of copying everyone else they need to take that time and develop something of their own that is unique. That is the ONLY way that company will survive.
There are several philosophies/methods of developing product.
(A) Innovate... where you "make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products"
or...
(B) Invent..."create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of"
Microsoft and Apple both innovate, but Apple manages to "invent" slightly more than Microsoft, sometimes to their detriment. The advantage of innovating means that you only have to improve something that exists in the marketplace (i.e.: has already been accepted by consumers).
The iPhone was innovative because it combined a number of previously proven ideas/technologies into one product which seemed unique in the marketplace.
Having said all that, it is obviously becoming far more difficult for Apple to invent new products because every technology company is studying their methods... with few blockbuster products to show for it so far.
I don't think downgrade rights are anything new. I think Windows XP Pro was offered with downgrade rights to Windows 2000 Pro. Maybe the same thing with 2000 to NT 4. I have a notebook computer that had XP Pro and 2000 Pro.
I can't recall the exact OS(es) but I think it was NT4 that had earlier versions of Windows on the install CD.
The real question now is, can Microsoft survive the next 9 or 10 years???
Of course they can. Microsoft owns the business market. Name one major corporation that doesn't rely on Exchange servers, Office, Outlook, etc.
And so what if some people dislike Vista? All those "IT professionals," bloggers, etc. make up an extremely vocal minority. The vast majority of Vista users have no issues with it, and this is how it works with every Windows release. Just like when XP came out, it was fine for the vast majority of people, but a few claimed (incorrectly) that 98 was better.
There are several philosophies/methods of developing product.
(A) Innovate... where you "make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products"
or...
(B) Invent..."create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of"
Microsoft and Apple both innovate, but Apple manages to "invent" slightly more than Microsoft, sometimes to their detriment. The advantage of innovating means that you only have to improve something that exists in the marketplace (i.e.: has already been accepted by consumers).
The iPhone was innovative because it combined a number of previously proven ideas/technologies into one product which seemed unique in the marketplace.
Having said all that, it is obviously becoming far more difficult for Apple to invent new products because every technology company is studying their methods... with few blockbuster products to show for it so far.
To me, innovative means invent. So when I said to be innovative, I really meant that they need to invent/bring new ideas to the table, which they really haven't done since windows 95.
Frankly I feel bad for the PC companies that are stuck with windows. Which brings up the question... Why isn't there more OS options for them other than Linux? Not to diss linux, but I tried to use Ubuntu Studio with no success whatsoever. I would figures the technologically advanced Japan or Europe would have created a better alternative by now. I would have even figured that big companies like Sony or HP would have created a better OS given the fact that windows is such a huge failure and that it devalues their products.
Is it really that hard to create a better OS alt. for PC?
"If they have been waiting, no more hesitating, when they see improvements in productivity, the desktop and mobility, they'll say XP, gotta get me some".
Wow, Microsoft sales team rocks, and they are going to keep on rocking with XP.
Is it really that hard to create a better OS alt. for PC?
Yes and no. Yes in that it takes a lot of time, man power, and a lot of money if you want to get it right, especially if you are starting from scratch. No in that, some parts of the OS can be cut and paste from other OS's or they can use GNU licensed pieces. Also, there is no guarantee that it will pay off. Case in point, OS/2 by IBM. IBM abandoned it, it wasn't worth the money or time to develop it.
I am so thrilled that I never went to work for them. Here's another area where MSFT clearly 'innovates'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_Jp6PxsSQ
Ouch. Just never ceases to amuze me!
That said, in my opinion, Vista is WAY better than XP. It is 100 times more secure and even though it annoys me, it has all its security features on by default which should protect all the people out there that don't know what they are doing.
It is slower, no doubt, but what can you expect for the next operating system after 6 years. Go buy a new computer if it's slow, it must be about time anyway.
Many little bugs and annoyances than exist in XP have been fixed in Vista and in my opinion, they really made a great stab at improving what they had.
There are companies that don't want to swap, but that's not because Vista is crap, it's because their sys admins are lazy bastards and don't want to maintain two systems.
As I said in the beginning, I don't like Microsoft. But I think people should give them a bit of slack on this one, and give them some credit. Operating systems is arguably the only thing the company has ever contributed to in terms of innovation and bringing something new to the table.
I love these promisses "you're gonna have to get XP for free", but I'd love to get some more information about it...
(Yes, Steve has windows-friends too
Getting neither one.
Anyone that has been following technology over the past 8 months has seen Microsoft backtracking on Vista. Now every company has to go downhill at some point. The problem is that they haven't shown anyone what they can do to correct the problems they are currently having.
They are throwing Windows 7 out there early to draw attention away from Vista, but they haven't shown in any way that Windows 7 will be better than Vista, or even XP. Touch screens.... big whoop. That means nothing to most people.
Microsoft tries to please everyone, and when you do that you wind up sinking in quicksand. They need an OS written from scratch, and unless they are working on it with the utmost in secrecy, Microsoft will keep losing market share for the next 10 years.
Companies are reluctant to switch for a number of reasons, my company has a couple thousand pentium 4 machines with 512mb of ram. They get by with XP, but Vista wouldn't run well at all. Once you upgrade the people with the newer computers, everyone else wants a Vista computer. And it always turns out the people that don't want the new OS are the ones with the new computers.
Many people get set in their ways and don't want to have to learn the new interface features. It's a huge cost to train a thousand users on a new OS when the current one works fine, a huge cost if you don't have training and your users become less productive while they're learning.
The operating system doesn't really make you productive, it's the applications you use. Try it sometime, load up DOS in a VM...unless you have some app to run, it's pretty boring. Even OS X, take away your network connection and bring up a clean install of OS X and unless you're into writing with TextEdit and keeping a calendar, not much to do.
Microsoft has a recent habit of making dramatic changes to the user interface. Vista does a number on the Windows users, but check out the new Office for Windows, a lot of feet dragging going on there. Is the new Office interface more productive? Maybe, but it's a steep learning curve for those that don't do well with change. There are some hidden gems though, Excel handles vastly larger worksheets.
Think Apple can do no wrong? Remember that every time Mail.app changes people are upset. Remember the MacOS 9 to OS X transition? People complain about everything new and different, change might be good, but humans aren't so good at accepting it.
Microsoft tries to please everyone, and when you do that you wind up sinking in quicksand. They need an OS written from scratch, and unless they are working on it with the utmost in secrecy, Microsoft will keep losing market share for the next 10 years.
Trying to be everything to everyone is certainly stretching them pretty badly.
Microsoft is always concerned with backwards compatibility. You can run a DOS program from 1988 on a brand new Vista computer. Windows APIs from the the start all work.
Microsoft gives away VirtualPC. What they need to do is build WindowsLite and package it up with VirtualPC and ship it in Windows7 or probably for them Windows 8 or 9. Start clean and strip out everything but the win32/win64 apis (most modern apps should still run). If an app needs to run with Windows3.1 apis or is a DOS app it can be run in "WindowsLite."
I agree they need to start fresh, but they can't succeed without application support. They would extend support for the old OS because of customer demand and inadvertently kill the new OS in doing so, hurting the developers that took the jump.
....They need an OS written from scratch....
Problem is, Microsoft has never written an OS from scratch. They bought DOS by acquiring Seattle Computer Products, who wrote it. (It was a probably-illegal unauthorized 16-bit port of CP/M anyway.) Then when Scully gave them the Macintosh UI, they still weren't capable of even copying it competently. Anyone who's holding their breath waiting for them to write a whole new, game-changing OS from scratch is going to get awfully dizzy!