Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Attempt To Convert Users From Windows XP Backfires
MojoKid writes "Microsoft has been loudly and insistently banging a drum: All support and service for Windows XP and Office 2003 shuts down on April 8. In early February, faced with a slight uptick in users on the decrepit operating system the month before, Microsoft hit on an idea: Why not recruit tech-savvy friends and family to tell old holdouts to get off XP? The response ... was a torrent of abuse from Windows 8 users who aren't exactly thrilled with the operating system. Microsoft has come under serious fire for some significant missteps in this process, including a total lack of actual upgrade options. What Microsoft calls an upgrade involves completely wiping the PC and reinstalling a fresh OS copy on it — or ideally, buying a new device. Microsoft has misjudged how strong its relationship is with consumers and failed to acknowledge its own shortcomings. Not providing an upgrade utility is one example — but so is the general lack of attractive upgrade prices or even the most basic understanding of why users haven't upgraded. Microsoft's right to kill XP is unquestioned, but the company appears to have no insight into why its customers continue to use the OS. "
Anyone who I have known who wanted to buy a new computer, I have told them to make sure they get windows 7. Those people have been pretty ok. If Microsoft wasn't trying to kill their good product (Win 7) by pushing everyone to Win 8, they'd be fine.
So, I get the hate on metro, but it is mostly easily avoided, and Win8 desktop is better than Win7. I'm running Win8 and even though I don't use and don't like metro on a non-touch machine, I would never want to downgrade to Win7.
You seem to be unaware that "Security updates" are possible for XP.
Oh, yes, Microsoft is deciding not to, but then are they giving up control of XP? No. Will they let anyone else produce patches? No. Did the EULA that MS and you love and adore so much as The Very Last Word On Rights say that it was a limited time demo and that it would stop working and that it would be left broken if they didn't manage to fix all the security holes they left in it on release quick enough? No.
So where do they get the RIGHT to stop it?
They don't.
It's just that copyrights are about rights not responsibilities, and rightsowners do not care about anyone's rights but theirs, and definitely do not want to pay the price of their rights. So they think they have the RIGHT to stop updates.
Sorry, I bought the OS under the assumption that it was fit for the purpose. If it needs security updates, then it never was fit for the purpose, so can I have my money back? No? Why?