Your post may be entirely true, but it's conspicuously missing a reason to spend $150 for something that "isn't that bad". Particularly if I'm a business, and the true cost of switching (measured in IT time) is way, way larger than $150.
"Windows 7 will likely not be significantly slower than Vista?" Wow, what a great selling point. "Everyone loves eye candy and UI improvements?" Perhaps -- but those who do have bought Macs already. "Now with better access control support?" Gosh, that's what I really hate about XP -- it doesn't have enough DRM to slow down my machine and lock me out of my own data!
The best selling point for Vista would probably be security. But Microsoft seems oddly reluctant to play the "switch to Windows 7 because our earlier products are so riddled with flaws that they put your life at risk" card. ;)
(I should point out that I'm joking -- I'm no security expert, and in fact I'm not sure that XP is really that much less secure than Vista. And that, itself, is part of Vista's marketing problem, isn't it?)
Most people don't spend $150 on an OS, they get it "free" with their PC.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS. Microsoft have basically no competition in the business sector - they're pretty much only competing with themselves.
A large proportion of people dislike like Vista because they've either heard it's bad or have had bad experiences using it on low-spec computers. This is unlikely to happen with Windows 7, especially considering improvements in computer speed in the meantime.
Apple products make up around 10-15% of the market in the west and much, much less worldwide - a relative minority. People like pretty things whether or not they own, or can own, a Mac.
"Access control" isn't DRM, it's a security decision, and actually a good thing that had to be introduced into Windows eventually to improve its much-criticised security model. There was always going to be some criticism over it.
Microsoft don't need to make a great product, just a better one. Their product is the natural upgrade path, they just need to create a "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" message which looks like the direction they are going.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS.
I agree with this. And, yet... once you cross the line from nominally working for your customers to overtly extorting money from them, you can't go back.
So I doubt that Microsoft will pull support for XP until the demand is gone. And the demand won't be gone until there's a real reason to upgrade to Windows 7. A "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" marketing message will be nice and everything, but I'm guessing that IT departments will not be easily fooled. They've heard a lot of marketing doubletalk; they're pretty used to it by now. They will have to have to be given actual reasons before they will switch.
If you think that it's "inevitable" that XP will eventually be retired... I know some Cobol programmers that I could introduce you to. ;) Not that I believe that XP will last as long as Cobol. I find it hard to believe that it could possibly be supported for much longer than another decade.
Comments
Your post may be entirely true, but it's conspicuously missing a reason to spend $150 for something that "isn't that bad". Particularly if I'm a business, and the true cost of switching (measured in IT time) is way, way larger than $150.
"Windows 7 will likely not be significantly slower than Vista?" Wow, what a great selling point. "Everyone loves eye candy and UI improvements?" Perhaps -- but those who do have bought Macs already. "Now with better access control support?" Gosh, that's what I really hate about XP -- it doesn't have enough DRM to slow down my machine and lock me out of my own data!
The best selling point for Vista would probably be security. But Microsoft seems oddly reluctant to play the "switch to Windows 7 because our earlier products are so riddled with flaws that they put your life at risk" card. ;)
(I should point out that I'm joking -- I'm no security expert, and in fact I'm not sure that XP is really that much less secure than Vista. And that, itself, is part of Vista's marketing problem, isn't it?)
Most people don't spend $150 on an OS, they get it "free" with their PC.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS. Microsoft have basically no competition in the business sector - they're pretty much only competing with themselves.
A large proportion of people dislike like Vista because they've either heard it's bad or have had bad experiences using it on low-spec computers. This is unlikely to happen with Windows 7, especially considering improvements in computer speed in the meantime.
Apple products make up around 10-15% of the market in the west and much, much less worldwide - a relative minority. People like pretty things whether or not they own, or can own, a Mac.
"Access control" isn't DRM, it's a security decision, and actually a good thing that had to be introduced into Windows eventually to improve its much-criticised security model. There was always going to be some criticism over it.
Microsoft don't need to make a great product, just a better one. Their product is the natural upgrade path, they just need to create a "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" message which looks like the direction they are going.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS.
I agree with this. And, yet... once you cross the line from nominally working for your customers to overtly extorting money from them, you can't go back.
So I doubt that Microsoft will pull support for XP until the demand is gone. And the demand won't be gone until there's a real reason to upgrade to Windows 7. A "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" marketing message will be nice and everything, but I'm guessing that IT departments will not be easily fooled. They've heard a lot of marketing doubletalk; they're pretty used to it by now. They will have to have to be given actual reasons before they will switch.
If you think that it's "inevitable" that XP will eventually be retired... I know some Cobol programmers that I could introduce you to. ;) Not that I believe that XP will last as long as Cobol. I find it hard to believe that it could possibly be supported for much longer than another decade.