The Myth of Upgrade Inevitability Is Dead

Several readers pointed out a ComputerWorld UK blog piece on the expanding ripples of the Vista fiasco. Glyn Moody quotes an earlier Inquirer piece about Vista, which he notes "has been memorably described as DRM masquerading as an operating system": "Studies carried out by both Gartner and IDC have found that because older software is often incompatible with Vista, many consumers are opting for used computers with XP installed as a default, rather than buying an expensive new PC with Vista and downgrading. Big business, which typically thinks nothing about splashing out for newer, more up-to-date PCs, is also having trouble with Vista, with even firms like Intel noting XP would remain the dominant OS within the company for the foreseeable future." Moody continues: "What's really important about this is not so much that Vista is manifestly such a dog, but that the myth of upgrade inevitability has been destroyed. Companies have realized that they do have a choice — that they can simply say 'no.' From there, it's but a small step to realizing that they can also walk away from Windows completely, provided the alternatives offer sufficient data compatibility to make that move realistic."

Comments

last sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

the last sentence is a load of bollocks. People stick with XP because then they don't have to change their existing software. Walking away from windows would force just that

Re:last sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

> wine?

Why bother, when you can have the real thing?

You need to remember that most people are not Linux zealots, are quite happy to use Windows if it meets their needs, and won't jump through hoops to avoid using Windows.

Re:last sentence

[mangu]

People stick with XP because then they don't have to change their existing software

Wrong, people stick with XP because they are familiar with it. Otherwise, why would 70% of eeePC sales be XP models? I assume no one buys an eeePC to run Photoshop or AutoCAD.

I think the eeePC is a good argument to show that Microsoft sales are largely driven by consumer inertia. This is a small computer that, at least in the 9" screen and 20GB SSD model, is well balanced, very practical, and an excellent example of a product where Linux makes perfect sense. The Linux eeePC is a complete system, with all the applications a large majority of consumers want.

Yet 70% of consumers opt for XP. After getting it with XP, they still need to install the applications they want to use, and need to configure those applications to the hardware. In the end, they had to work more to get a system that's less functional
and less practical.

It's not logical reasons that keep people from shifting to Linux now, it's just the fear of the unknown.

Re:last sentence

[DerWulf]

OR vista might still be more compatible and more of what people actually like then linux and nothing will change. I really hope that someday there will be real(tm) choice(tm) on the desktop but it's not going to happen if linux banks on MS driving linux adoptoion ...

Re:last sentence

[Bandman]

really? you've really never met a linux user? I'm afraid that you've had a very poor sampling of developers then.

Re:last sentence

[Tony Hoyle]

It's not logical reasons that keep people from shifting to Linux now, it's just the fear of the unknown.

That's also killing Vista as much as its bad reputation.

Microsoft are their own worst enemy at the moment. Windows 95/98/ME and XP had substantially the same interface.. the majority of non-techies will have learned on that interface.. schools are still teaching that interface in 'office' classes. It's extremely likely that everyone in your workplace from the cleaners upwards would know what to do when faced with an XP desktop. Now MS want to throw all that learning away - and people are just saying "screw that, I want my nice familiar interface back" and downgrading to XP.

Re:last sentence

[that this is not und]

That'll mean all those businesses who try to hang on will be forced to seek another option then,

Yes. But there are considerable other options. Businesses can, for instance, harden the infrastructure around their XP workstations without upgrading them further. My stapler hasn't required an 'upgrade' in over 12 years (since the mandatory red-color upgrade.) The notion that any significant amount of security resides in the desktop PC is ridiculous and so easily proven to be a joke (as Microsoft provides it) that it's time for corporate IT to step past that myth. The boundary for security is outside the PC in the network surrounding it.

Microsoft is fairly good at providing a soft and cushy 'client' level environment. The key to increased security in a corporate environment is to firewall Microsoft in. Firewalls that block Windows desktops in from both sides. Don't allow their badly designed kludgeware anywhere BUT on the desktop and things can be well managed and secure.

Re:last sentence

[blahplusplus]

"It's not logical reasons that keep people from shifting to Linux now, it's just the fear of the unknown."

Personally I don't understand why linux doesn't merely mimic the desktop of XP and windows completely, people don't give a shit about the OS they use. Those kinds of details are beyond them most of the time. If I were adding to linux development, I'd get really serious about copying the user shell of windows completely and then the user would not have to know that he's "Using linux" and worry about the unfamiliarity of linux. I'm not sure if they could get away with this without MS claiming some BS. But that would be the way to go is to 'sneak linux in' by making the UI work and look exactly like XP so the user can't tell the difference and doesn't have to be 'afraid' of using linux because the user experience is the same.

Re:last sentence

[Skrynesaver]

While your stapler remains locked in your drawer there is no security issue with your stapler, however as soon as you let "Bob" use it it will get lost. He'll give it to Eve, who'll promise to hand it on to you untouched but ...

Oh sod it I'm not going to draw another pointless Slashdot analogy, your desktop computer needs to communicate with the outside world to get useful work done, it needs to process the results of that communication, no matter how good your filtering technology some smart-arse will find a way to subvert it. Security is about secure systems all the way down, ring-fencing any segment and declaring it as secure because it's behind a firewall is self-delusion.

Now next question, do any of your staff work from home? Do they have kids? Do sales staff connect to client's networks when they are off site?

Re:last sentence

[HockeyPuck]

I can run XP in a virtual machine that moves with me across my various desktops, laptop, etc, in a 100% consistent "hardware" environment so I can stay on the hardware upward speed curve as Apple brings out new machines

What a waste of hardware resources. So you have to use a certain amount of CPU/memory/HD just to support your native OSX OS and applications. Then you've got to use an additional amount of memory to support this VM (or API) plus the windows native applications. If you tell me that Outlook in a winXP VM uses less memory than the same Outlook process in native winXP, I'm calling bull. Don't give me the BS about "I don't need a virusscan/malware checker" if you're running XP in a VM.

My main applications at work at Outlook (plus plugins), Visio and various internal websites that use ActiveX controls or require IE (Oracle Projects!). When _all_ of my primary applications are natively supported in OSX, I'll gladly switch over, but to have a setup in which I'm forced to run XP in a VM (or via API), I'll keep my native windows setup thank you.

Btw... don't forget the lessons of OS/2. It could run windows 3.11 applications, but not nearly as fast or efficiently as a native OS/2 Warp app.

Re:last sentence

[ivan256]

I know tons of Linux developers... Many of them have their boxes configured to be able to dual boot... But the only people I know who actually dual boot are gamers. Everybody else keeps that windows partition/drive around "just in case", but never ends up booting into it.

Re:last sentence

[TemporalBeing]

Office also is facing a real lack of motivation as far as upgrading goes as well.

Doesn't help that they made the training costs of moving from any old version of Office to the new version the same as going from any old version of Office to competitors product.

It's ironic that they made the cost (and thus the move) from Office feasible for their customers by killing off the one thing that they had going for them at a time when F/OSS and other competitors were mature enough to handle all the old formats.

Upgrading must be for a reason

[KennyMillar]

I really struggle to comprehend companies which upgrade without doing a full cost/benefit analysis first. Surely when upgrading a significant number of machines with a new OS, you must consider a) the benefits b)the cost c)training requirements and d)other options. By other options I mean such things as Other OSes including Linux and Mac OS X - and in order to do that you need to speak to experts in each field, not just a MS Expert who will only tell you the benefits of Vista and the downsides of everything else. I really do not see the benefit of upgrading from XP to Vista for most business users - who, lets face it, are doing web, email, word and excel. Is there really anything they can;t do just now? Or anything they really NEED from Vista? What about Mac OS X - doesn't that provide much the same 'new' features?

Re:Upgrading must be for a reason

[afc_wimbledon]

Indeed, but the reason is often justifying the jobs and budget of the department doing the upgrading, sadly.

Re:Upgrading must be for a reason

[pugdk]

Yes, upgrading must be for a reason.

I recently decided to upgrade to Vista because Microsoft has utterly destroyed the functionality and stability of Windows XP with its recent updates (say in the last 9-12 months or so).

I'm not sure exactly when this happend, but I'm not alone, plenty of coworkers have the same problem:

Double clicking on an office file (doc, xls, ppt) will make windows go into a waiting period (hour glass) for several minutes (up to half an hour or until you reboot) before the file is finally opened. This "functionality" is present not only with office files (but mostly these), but also other documents (besides office documents) suffer the same fate.

This has happend to a range of computers, running a range of different anti virus software, with a range of different office versions (office 2000, XP and 2003).

Now, you then install a CLEAN version of XP and a clean version of office (with antivirus etc.) this DOES NOT happen!

You then update your XP and Office (or wait for your computer to get owned... argh) and the problem comes back!

Hence Microsofts update has FORCED me to upgrade to Vista to get any meaningful work done... at least this problem is gone from Vista, however other problems then pop up, most notably, the lack of obtaining a new IP via DHCP when switching from one location to another... jesus, how hard can it be? but also performance drops (mostly network related) and no, I'm not alone in seeing these things either.

All in all, I got rid of some showstoppers caused by updating Windows XP, just to be annoyed by simple problems in Vista.

Considering the price tag this software comes with, I can't say I'm impressed with the problems, neither am I impressed with the observation that Microsoft forced me to upgrade to Vista by utterly messing up XP *after Vista was shipped!*

*sighs*

(No, using Linux is unfortunately not an option, as we use software everyday that runs only on Windows... using a Mac would bring forth the same problems, its either Windows or not get any work done!)

Re:Upgrading must be for a reason

[drsmithy]

I really do not see the benefit of upgrading from XP to Vista for most business users - who, lets face it, are doing web, email, word and excel.

The benefits of upgrading to Vista (much like those from upgrading to XP) are not for the end users, they are for the IT departments that have to support them.

And it is this supporting infrastructure that is often the reason why Linux, OS X, et al, are not options.

Re:Upgrading must be for a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip: Install wireshark and listen to the network interface after clicking the office file. I think you'll quickly find the cause of your problem.

Re:Upgrading must be for a reason

[Bert64]

So your basically screwed...
MS has you locked in, and they arbitrarily crippled the software you were using to make you buy new stuff...

For the obligatory car analogy, it would be like Ford coming and smashing up your old car and forcing you to buy a new one.

MS have you over a barrel, and this will probably only be the start. I would suggest you look seriously at replacing the software keeping you locked in, before MS pulls a few more stunts like this. Your business is in an extremely weak position, utterly beholden to the whims of one company.

Would you put up with treatment like this from anyone else, or would you ditch them and go elsewhere?

Re:Upgrading must be for a reason

[slash.duncan]

Considering the price tag [I am not] impressed with the observation that Microsoft forced me to upgrade to Vista by utterly messing up XP *after Vista was shipped!*
*sighs*

OK, I recognize that I'm taking a controversial position with this post, but it's my post and I choose to take it. So be it if people find it radical and it kills my karma. If there's ever an issue I believe it worth losing it on, this is it.

They didn't force anything.

If there's one thing I learned as a victim of abuse (emotional and physical, FWIW the wounds are now healed into scars, a decade after the last one), it's that I ALWAYS have a choice. In the ultimate worst case, it may be only the choice to continue to fight even to the death or to surrender, but once I've given in and let them take away my last choice, I've let them win, and been subsumed by victim syndrome. Once that happens, the reality distortion starts, and the victim fails to see ways out even when they do present themselves. That's classic victim syndrome and the reason so many abuse victims continue to fall into the same pattern again and again. Serial victims, they get out of one victimization situation only to find themselves it another. It becomes the default response to challenge. There's only one way out, learning that you ALWAYS have choices, at whatever level they may be. The abusers CANNOT take that from you unless you allow them to.

Only once I learned that, did I break out of the repeating pattern. Only once I learned to actively look for and assert the choices I had, did I overcome the vicious serial victim cycle. NEVER. EVER. EVER. Let them tell you differently.

Umm... back to the discussion at hand...

So it wasn't that they forced you into anything. Rather, you either actively surveyed the range of choices and made what you perceived to be the best option you had (out of several), or you took the default option, the one the people you have allowed to be your masters (see my sig) wanted you to take, not by active choice, but by defaulting, allowing them to make the choice for you.

(No, using Linux is unfortunately not an option, as we use software everyday that runs only on Windows... using a Mac would bring forth the same problems, its either Windows or not get any work done!)

It's certainly an option, because you can simply recompile that everyday software to the new interface... Oh, wait... you can't... because you allowed someone else to be your master, taking away your freedom and dictating what you could and couldn't do with software you had chosen to run. Again, see the sig.

But it's still an option, because you can, starting now, choose not to put yourself in that position again, while digging yourself out of the hole you find yourself in due to your past choices.

Meanwhile, as you said, a clean install doesn't have the problem. Thus, it's one of the updates. Try applying the updates one at a time (maybe consider the MS Office updates the potential culprit and either test them first or last, given other comments) and checking for the problem, then rolling back (by force of a reinstall if those you have chosen to allow to be your masters decree it) if the problem appears. Or, if there's a lot of updates as there may well be, it may be easier to systematically bisect the problem, installing half the updates, seeing if it's in that half, then either installing half of the remainder or rolling back and installing half of the bad test and checking again.

Eventually you'll pin it to a single update. Don't do that update, while doing the others. Then check the patch (or have someone else do so if you don't read code, it's like taking a car to a mechanic if you aren't one)... oh... right... your masters don't allow that, do they? Umm... look at the patch/update description and decide whether it's a patch you can safely do without while on the net or not. If not, you'll either need to fin

Re:Upgrading must be for a reason

[TheRaven64]

Software purchases seem to make people forget everything they know about economics. For any other business-critical purchase, the first question asked is 'who is the second source for this product?' For software, people seem to forget to ask this question.

Upgrades are still necessary.

[purpledinoz]

The minimum requirements for Windows XP are 300Mhz CPU and 64MB of RAM. XP was designed for yesterday's hardware. My work laptop is XP and my home laptop is Vista and I found that Vista handles my 2GB of memory a lot better than XP. For example, task switching from Half Life 2 to the desktop is handled a lot better in Vista than XP. If all the bullshit was removed from Vista, it would perform better than XP. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Re:Upgrades are still necessary.

[Endymion]

Sure, there's some technical improvements, but most people don't care!

They just want to know if their web browser and Word/Powerpoint will work. And we passed the point where that was an issue a long time ago.

Remember, a vast majority of XP users are not playing HL2...

Strange leap in logic...

[Endymion]

From there, it's but a small step to realizing that they can also walk away from Windows completely

No way. I'm as huge a unix and Free Software proponent as anyone here, but even I can see that statement is utterly idiotic. The motivation to stay with XP is the desire to not change. Change takes effort, which is generally not worth it if things are working fine at the moment. The "don't fix it if it's not broken" theory.

The simple fact is that most computers, both hardware and software, are generally "good enough" these days. This means that the most efficient thing for you to be using is often the one you are using at the moment. To suggest otherwise demands a substantial benefit, and Microsoft is (hopefully) figuring out that they are no longer offering such a benefit. Free alternatives may indeed offer substantial benefits, but it's generally in more obscure things like "not being tied to a single vendor" that are not a direct impact on most people's daily computer needs.

Now, it's still great that people seem to be finally jumping off the Microsoft upgrade-treadmill, but it's going to be a while yet before they decide other upgrades might be a viable option...

!smallstep

[Kjella]

From there, it's but a small step to realizing that they can also walk away from Windows completely, provided the alternatives offer sufficient data compatibility to make that move realistic."

Sure, the group that says "if it works, don't break it" are going to throw out all their old applications and start using a completely new set of applications, if only the data compatibility is good enough. Maybe you should start at the application front? Because if people won't switch from Windows/Word to Windows/OpenOffice they certainly won't move from Windows/Word to Linux/OpenOffice. Linux/WINE/Word is hardly the answer.

Bollocks

[drsmithy]

Big business, which typically thinks nothing about splashing out for newer, more up-to-date PCs, is also having trouble with Vista, with even firms like Intel noting XP would remain the dominant OS within the company for the foreseeable future.

Bollocks. Big businesses (like, say, Intel) run a 3-5 year upgrade cycle (closer to 5 these days), based around both hardware cycles (typically due to leasing arrangements) and software certification. The _earliest_ any intelligent person would expect Vista to start appearing in big business IT (outside of pilot programs, testing and CxO laptops) is the beginning of 2009, and more likely around the beginning of 2010.

What's really important about this is not so much that Vista is manifestly such a dog, but that the myth of upgrade inevitability has been destroyed. Companies have realised that they do have a choice â" that they can simply say âoenoâ. From there, it's but a small step to realising that they can also walk away from Windows completely, provided the alternatives offer sufficient data compatibility to make that move realistic.

Bollocks. Those staying with XP are doing so because it is a known quantity. If they're not prepared to move to the mostly-known-quantity of Vista, they sure as hell aren't going to step into the complete unknowns of OS X or Linux.

That may not have been the case before, but the similar poor uptake of Microsoft's OOXML, taken together with the generally good compatibility of OpenOffice.org with the original Microsoft Office file formats, implies that we may well be near the tipping point for migrations to free software on the desktop..

So 2009 will be the year of the Linux desktop ? Just like 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000 and 1999 were going to be ?

I'm obviously not the only one thinking along these lines. Last weekend, Dell was advertising its new Inspiron Mini 9 in at least one national newspaper. This would have been unthinkable even a year ago, when the company's fear of upsetting the mighty Microsoft by mentioning the âoeLâ word would have been too great, and is further evidence that GNU/Linux is indeed becoming a mainstream option.

Bollocks. Dell have been selling servers, workstations and desktops with Linux installed for *years*.

In summary, the writer is a clueless fool, although that should had been obvious as soon as the phrase "quotes an earlier Inquirer piece [...]" appeared.

Re:Bollocks

[size8]

"Dell have been selling servers, workstations and desktops with Linux installed for *years*." Yes, but Dell hasn't been *advertising* Linux very heavily. And that was the point made by the post you replied to.

People don't like vista, Whoop de doo

[abigsmurf]

Vista isn't exactly the first big time flop Microsoft have had. Windows ME was unreliable rubbish that offered little benefit over 98 and was a huge flop. XP which followed it up was a huge success and, is a good, solid, reliable OS (despite all the venom directed at it).

Windows 7 has had glowing reports from everyone I know who's installed the beta and they find it incredibly fast, reliable and easy to use and that's only a beta> Microsoft have gone through every major critisism of Vista and fixed it or taken a better approach to it.

The only thing that was 'wrong' with Vista that currently remains is the DRM but that was a whole load of FUD to begin with. Don't want DRM? Don't buy DRM protected content that won't play on software without the DRM features Vista has.

As for no need to upgrade, XP is approaching the end of its lifespan, it's not designed for technologies such as SSDs nor is it really designed for Netbooks (the only reason it runs well on them is because XP was designed to run on 500mhz systems with 512mb ram). software is starting to hit the 4gb ram limit of 32bit OS' and it's not going to be worth spending a lot of time and money 'upgrading' to xp 64 when it would cost them little extra to upgrade to 7.

Shortened version: When MS last had an OS flop, they followed it up with their most successful OS ever.

I had MS Works on a 486

[91degrees]

While it wasn't as fully featured as the latest version of Word, there wasn't a lot that I wanted to do that Works was too limited for. Modern machines have hundreds of times more RAM and a similar increase in processing power and really don't do a whole lot more.

Here we go again

[Gadget_Guy]

This is really something new for Microsoft, isn't it? It's not as if there are people still using Windows 2000 anywhere... Oh, wait.

Everytime there is a new version of any operating system this same thing happens. People say that there is no compelling reason to upgrade. A bunch of people draw the line and never upgrade. Doom and gloom is predicted for the future.

This is why there are still people using OS/2, AmigaOS, Windows 9x and even Windows 3.1.

But life goes on, and eventually the most of the general population does upgrade. New computers are purchased, business cases are made to upgrade entire organisations and software is purchased that requires a newer OS. The upgrade cycle doesn't happened in a huge wave. It is more of a constant flow.

The reason for this is the generally accepted one: that there are never compelling reasons to do so. However, once you do get used to a new OS, you tend find it hard to go back again. Yes, we have all heard the stories of people immediately downgrading new computers when buying Vista, but so many of those stories fail to take into account the crapware installed by the PC maker that also gets wiped when reinstalling the OS.

Vista software incompatibility

[ZP-Blight]

With regards to vista compatibility issues.

The biggest issue with vista compatibility is that with User Account Control, you can't write into the "Program Files" directory, even as administrator.

Microsoft now requires that all data written by a software be stored in the "AppData" directory.
So how do developers react?

The good developers split their program files between the static files (which go into the "Program Files" directory) and dynamic files (files that need to be written to which go in the "AppData" directory).
What do the lazy programmers do? Put their entire program into the "AppData" directory and avoid any hassle altogether.

So now, the "AppData" directory essentially becomes the new "Program Files" directory, but... The users are 99% unaware of this and the "AppData" directory (which there are several of) gets contaminated with more junk which is harder to find.

Depends of your point of view

[PinkyDead]

Can't agree with that.

If you're talking about the home user, then they will change as soon as they buy new hardware. They will take what they are given and they will like it. Just go into any computer shop and open your ears: Dad is in there, he's heard bad things about Vista and he's fairly sure he doesn't want it - but he still leaves the shop with it under his arm. When he gets home, he finds he's not happy, but there is nothing he can do - and unless he can get someone to downgrade it (which he's not comfortable about either) he's stuck with it. Whether that means that he will switch really depends on what Mac/Linux can offer to that market segment.

Small businesses will operate in a similar fashion, but because they have better budgets for hardware upgrades and the availability of technically capable individuals for advice and support, they won't take the crap and will be a lot less resistant to change (except for the accounts "department" - because they use balance sheets to determine software quality).

As for the medium to large business user - they cannot use unsupported software, so if XP ever ends up in that state they will have to change.

The problem they have right now is that Vista represents too much of a cost overhead to support internally, for at best no advantage, or more typically severe costs in terms of reduced productivity or hardware upgrades.

They currently live in an overlap which XP represents, but as that overlap shrinks they will start seriously looking at alternatives.

On top of this, those involved in making the decisions may be going one step further and projecting a future where every 12-24 months a new version of Windows appears and with it a repeat of the current uncertainty. If they are, then good business sense says that, unless Microsoft put guarantees in place (which must be based on what they have, not what the intend to have), then it is time to start planning for change.

Re:Depends of your point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go into any computer shop and open your ears: Dad is in there, he's heard bad things about Vista and he's fairly sure he doesn't want it - but he still leaves the shop with it under his arm. When he gets home, he finds he's not happy, but there is nothing he can do

Or, more likely, he gets it home and finds he is happy. End of problem.

Re:You don't have a choice

[FictionPimp]

I know, we can just grab a copy from the repository and fork windows xp right?

no, we haven't been here before - not even with ME

[Uberbah]

Previous new versions of Windows offered increased usability or stability (NT -> 2k -> XP, 95 -> 98), while seeing system requirements rise by an average of 177%/122%/282% for processor/memory/hard drive space on NT based operating systems. XP's annoying product activation at least came with instant user switching and the "run as" contextual menu, which made it much less of a pain in the ass to have your user account not be an administrator.

However, Vista's requirements are a 343%/800%/1000% increase over XP's. And for what? The only interesting feature of Vista that wasn't stripped out was ReadyBoost, which is overcome by the bloat and DRM. Visa is a big sinking pile of shit, just like ME.

But ME was a stop gap release, it wasn't supposed to be the future of the company. And now, as Apple lampoons, Microsoft's solution to the problem is to spend a bunch of money to fix consumer's impression of Vista, rather than fixing Vista.