Microsoft Disses Windows to Sell More Windows 407
mjasay writes "I stumbled across this fascinating Microsoft tutorial entitled "How to Justify a Desktop Upgrade." It's an attempt to coach IT professionals on how to sell Windows desktop upgrades internally. Apparently the value of Vista is not readily apparent, requiring detailed instructions on how to connive and cajole into an upgrade from XP. The most intriguing thing about the tutorial is its implicit rejection of Microsoft's older technology. Just a few years ago Microsoft was pitching the world on how secure and cool XP was. Now it's telling us largely the opposite, implying that XP is a security threat, costs too much to run, and so on. With Microsoft marketing against itself, perhaps the Mac and Linux camps can simply wait for Microsoft to self-destruct?"
Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Vista Costs Too (Score:4, Interesting)
So there aren't any costs to maintaining Vista? Yeah right. Marketing FUD if I ever heard. I guess it's no real surprise though. Business x wants you to pay them the most money, so they'll say whatever to get your money, even if it is FUD.
Re:Value of Vista (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows 2k used more resources than windows 98 and offered a host of new features. Windows XP used more resources than win2k but was mostly eye candy.
Vista looks to me like it's mostly eye candy. Some of the UI changes take some getting used to, but so does upgrading gnome or kde.
I don't think vista is a compelling reason to upgrade, but new machines will run it because that's what MS sell, and the transition will happen slowly, but it will still happen. I certainly don't think it's going to become another Windows ME - at least Microsoft seem to have learned that lesson.
From an open source perspective it's certainly a good thing MS haven't come up with anything terribly new and innovative. If they had, it would almost certainly be patented and have become another reason for folk not switching to the linux desktop.
Re:Really? (Score:1, Interesting)
Huge difference.
PS. I have a story for you. Once there was this company that cried security. It kept doing it, and eventually no one listened to it.
That's the point (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you've never read the “Intel Retail Edge” program manual or virtually any software's change-log/release notes.
It's been a long time since I've seen such crap on the frontpage of /. Almost every product out there gets released under these values, including the Linux kernel and MacOS. “It's more secure, upgrade now!”
That's the point. XP came out years ago, and finally in 2007 a new version of Windows was released after much bitching by the market (us). Now that it's out, we're attacking its release because of the reasons we wanted a new version of Windows?
Excuse me if I don't see the point of this news...
Re:Value of Vista (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure there are security updates, but to find out if they're a) good or b) effective will take some time.
If we're lucky, we will see some dramatic improvement in the number of programs available that will run correctly under a limited user account. If the majority of windows programs had run effectively under limited user accounts, many many of the problems windows has faced could have been alleviated.
Re:Not because Vista is particularily bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
On a personal note, I'm disappointed with Vista because it doesn't add enough value for me. I mean.. it takes them 5 years and then they price it insanely high and for what? A sidebar with useless "gadgets?" Aero? Throw on top of that poor compatibility and the host of other problems that I and others have experienced, and you have to ask yourself what you paid for. Of course, people will argue the value is "under the hood," but those people will have to get real. MS threw away everything that was cool from Longhorn and nothing remained for Vista. Arguably little remains to improve Vista over XP, and I would say that the cons of Vista negate any pros it has going for it.
That's only comparing Vista to XP, an old operating system by this time. The competition from Apple and the linux community hasn't been stagnant either, so at t his point I would say that the cost of Vista certainly doesn't match the value, and while such good alternatives, I can't really recommend Vista to anyone. But again, if you're already using it and it works for you, excellent. Most people however will not find the value it would take to justify the costs of upgrading (which are higher than just the cost of Vista alone).
Re:Wow... more rabid MS hate? On Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee, Vista runs fine on my quad core 4G machine .. (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that Microsoft thinks that as soon as a new version of Windows comes out, all Windows users must immediately buy a brand new, maxed out system, install Vista and throw out whatever they had before. It's really just mind-bending how the hardware gets faster and faster, and Microsoft continues to come out with point zero versions of their operating system that demands new hardware.
If Microsoft were as smart as I thought they were, they'd happily continue to sell XP (instead of being forced into it by the marketplace), but focus new development on Vista, and work on getting the bugs out of Vista in the meantime. I am so tired of hearing MS fanatics expostulating that the latest Release Candidate is 'rock solid' for them. It was tiring when Windows 95 was in development, and it still tiring a dozen years later.
Then again, I must be in the minority -- I have Windows 98 on an old P-450, and Linux on two other systems, but I manage to get a lot done.
Re:Wow... more rabid MS hate? On Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many changes in Vista are simply immediately apparent to even end-users, because there is a ton of new eye-candy (in addition to the extensive under-the-hood reworkings). Leopard, most of the important changes are under-the-hood modifications (better access to filesystem, such as the FSEvents API, the new 64-bit throughout setup, system self-signing of downloaded applications, etc.), with less new eye-candy, but speaking as a developer, there are some equally sweeping changes under the hood.
Every operating system progresses as time goes on, as long as it is still in active development. Windows, Linux, Mac OS X...
Re:Default Administrators (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft only "sells well" because they are master marketeers with a monopoly. That's essentially the snake oil salesman of the old west who just happens to be the Sheriff too. And he's got a big gun he's proven he's willing to use.
And yes, "better security is better for the community" and THAT is exactly why everyone should stay away from Microsoft. They are not out to make security better or to make their product better, they are out to take your money and will do so using any trick in the book. It just so happens that the internet and Linux have get the tech industry's attention because of security and reliability( being based on UNIX ) benefits they've shown. Microsoft would drop security as a PR ploy in a heartbeat if it wasn't used as a means to migrate off of Windows. IMO, Microsoft's existence since the late 80's has done nothing but harm consumers of computing systems by putting out some of the worst designed software ever built and by crushing incredibly talented developers business opportunities because of perceived threats to their monopoly. They have a history of selling crap-ware and any amount of publishing materials by Microsoft paid consultants isn't going to make anybodies computing experience better in the long run. Just look at ObjectSharp as a business and you'll see that they bypass all non-Microsoft technology to be their stool pigeon. You can't say THAT is a trusted source when they deny their customers the benefit of alternate technologies because they've become a Microsoft 'partner'.
Happy Monday and yes, Microsoft still sucks no matter how they've spun it over 25+ years. IMO.
LoB
Re:Default Administrators (Score:2, Interesting)
Did XP have security issues? Yes. Has Vista fixed some of them? Yes (kind of). It's also a huge decrease in performance, handicaps media playback, etc. etc. If they were acknowledging XPs security flaws in order to adress them, I'd agree with you. Instead they're highlighting its flaws hoping you don't notice the slew of Vista flaws you'll get if you upgrade. Administrative access is a 5 second fix. The performance decrease and annoying UAC are not.
Re:a few years late (Score:3, Interesting)
The statements a coached as relative -- "Microsoft" operating system, "to date", etc. To find something more secure than XP on the day XP was released, you need to find something that needs an addition to do what XP does out of the box.
And even if it could be shown that they're literally false, those are clearly conched as "fluffing" statements, and have no more requirement for literal truth than a salesperson saying "this is the best deal ever."