main

Vista Transition: Microsoft Should Take a Lesson from Apple

Hurmoth   on 01 September 2006 - 15:26 · 33 comments & 17903 views

Advertisement (Why?)
The looming choice for Windows users is either to stick with Windows XP (and older hardware) or take Windows Vista cold turkey. But Microsoft doesn't have to be so tough—Apple did it differently with the Mac OS X rollout.

A major product transition is an opportunity for technology suppliers to send a message to partners and the installed base of users. It can be something on the order of "we care" to something less than warm and cuddly. And then there's Vista.

While Microsoft's approach to the 2007 launch of Windows Vista is only now coming into focus, it looks as if the Vista experience will stand in sharp contrast to the way Apple pitched the Mac community on its OS X transition.

View: Full Article @ eWeek.com

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 33 additional comments
(2 replies) #1 XerXis on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:30
huh? it's not like customers won't be able to buy windows xp anymore

Quote -
At the spring 2002 Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple warned its software partners that the end to Mac OS 9.x support was on the horizon. Steve Jobs opened his keynote with a eulogy to Mac OS 9, saying the OS "was a friend to us all." A coffin rose from the floor of the stage to the strains of J.S. Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor."


if microsoft decided to terminate product support for windows xp only one year after vista there would be an uproar, and it would be justified. So please, whatever you do, don't follow apple
#1.1 markjensen on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:33
I think that the point of the article was this section:
Quote -
... note that Mac OS X was a secondary operating system on Apple hardware. The default boot was into Mac OS 9.1.
...
In the fall of 2001, Apple released Puma (v10.1), a maintenance upgrade. Yet, it proved stable enough to let the company ship Macs with OS X as the default boot in January 2002.

Still, all of Apple's new and faster Mac models came with Mac OS 9 preloaded and as the primary OS. Users had a choice: Stay with the familiar look-and-feel of OS 9 programs for their workflows, or find improved memory and stability in an unfamiliar interface that required updated versions of applications.

If Microsoft would have Vista installed on every new PC, with XP as a seconday boot option, that would make people feel easier about buying a new Vista PC without worrying about if their favorite app would work in it.

Microsoft could then still let people know the "doom and gloom" message that XP was pretty much on its last legs.

To look at a couple of paragraphs, and determine that there are no lessons to be learned seems rather abrupt.
#1.2 XerXis on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:40
Quote - markjensen said @ #1.1
I think that the point of the article was this section:
Quote -
... note that Mac OS X was a secondary operating system on Apple hardware. The default boot was into Mac OS 9.1.
...
In the fall of 2001, Apple released Puma (v10.1), a maintenance upgrade. Yet, it proved stable enough to let the company ship Macs with OS X as the default boot in January 2002.

Still, all of Apple's new and faster Mac models came with Mac OS 9 preloaded and as the primary OS. Users had a choice: Stay with the familiar look-and-feel of OS 9 programs for their workflows, or find improved memory and stability in an unfamiliar interface that required updated versions of applications.

If Microsoft would have Vista installed on every new PC, with XP as a seconday boot option, that would make people feel easier about buying a new Vista PC without worrying about if their favorite app would work in it.

Microsoft could then still let people know the "doom and gloom" message that XP was pretty much on its last legs.

To look at a couple of paragraphs, and determine that there are no lessons to be learned seems rather abrupt.


actually I (but who aim i) don't think that's such a great idea. Take for example my mother, she wouldn't touch the vista partition even if the xp one broke (due to her spyware attracting habits) just because it's something new. Put vista on it, give her a normal account and let her get used to more security and newer features as fast as possible. That's my way .

And by the way, the fact that new computers will be equiped with vista as standard is something that microsoft and the industry decide together. When a client asks me to make him a pc in 2007 I will give him the option, xp or vista.
#2 Ytterbium on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:35
Virtual PC is free so you can virtualize your old stuff
(4 replies) #3 Sheppard on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:42
Yes that makes sense, lets knock out an incremental upgrade every 6 months, pretend that it has "millions" of new features and slap a $130 tag on it.

No thanks.
#3.1 Hurmoth on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:53
Try getting your facts straight first. It isn't every six months

Mac OS X 10.0 - March 2001
Mac OS X 10.1 - September 2001 (6 months -- I'll give you that one)
Mac OS X 10.2 - August 2002 (11 months)
Mac OS X 10.3 - October 2003 (13 months)
Mac OS X 10.4 - April 2005 (18 months)
Mac OS X 10.5 - 2007 (at least 20 months)

6 months huh? Maybe just one of them was release within six months after the previous one, but that was it.
#3.2 DomG on 01 Sep 2006 - 23:36
Don't forget, 10.0 to 10.1 was a free upgrade, so it doesn't count.
#3.3 frod on 02 Sep 2006 - 00:11
yeah, i much prefer knocking out an incremental upgrade every 6 years, pretending it has "millions" of new features and slapping a $350 tag on it.
#3.4 noleafclover on 02 Sep 2006 - 08:31
Quote - frod said @ #3.3
yeah, i much prefer knocking out an incremental upgrade every 6 years, pretending it has "millions" of new features and slapping a $350 tag on it.


buying every OS X upgrade still costs way more than Windows does anyway, so you're just backing up the Microsoft side of the aguement... you apple fan boys amuse me.
#4 Magallanes on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:44
There was not point in to compare Apple with MS. Apple sell computers (specific and with propietary stuff) and MS sell software.

Apple partners are someone that build some software or buy some extra gadget. Microsoft partner are all and everyone, in this case MS is over DELL. Dell can decided if they newest pc came with xp and/or came with vista and/or came with linux and/or came with OSX x86



#5 Ledward on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:44
The whole article is clearly biased towards Apple. When OS X was released, it was clearly the biggest sack of crap; bugs everywhere, current Macs not being able to run it at an acceptable level of performance; had Microsoft released something like that, enough people would bitch to start World War III.

The real reason why the Mac OS X transition was relatively quiet was because not enough people cared to have it be worth any media attention. 2% of computers use it. Wow.
#6 bangbang023 on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:49
I said this on the NeowinCAST months ago. Eventually, they have to drop the legacy support and say stay there or move on.
(1 reply) #7 neufuse on 01 Sep 2006 - 15:54
I'd rather pay $300 every 5yrs then $100 every year.......
#7.1 nw_raptor on 01 Sep 2006 - 16:50
actually, i'm not sure what's better. on the one hand you got osx, which delivers new stuff almost every year, and then you got vista, which took 5 years. i guess it's a matter of choice. don't forget though that not all windows releases were 5 years apart. windows 2000 had pretty much the same pricetag as windows xp, and the diff was around 2 years.

and since you're comparing pricetags, i'd rather pay $0 every 6 months, but that's just me
(1 reply) #8 BigCheese on 01 Sep 2006 - 16:04
I think this article is wrong, you can't comapre the transition from XP to Vista with the transtiion from OS 9 to OS X. In Vista, the vast majority of applications that were built for XP will still work, whereas OS9 applications had to be rewritten to work on OS X.
#8.1 Lasker on 01 Sep 2006 - 17:00
Not just that, OS X have an completely new system files and kernel different than OS 9, if you have a OS 9 application you need to rewrite the application completely from 0 and use carbon and xcode to be compatible with OS X. In Vista we have the same NTFS file system, they just make a new system layer on top of NTFS with an new API
(3 replies) #9 Dashel on 01 Sep 2006 - 17:24
Application support has been a nightmare ever since the switch from 9 to X. Bending the customer over every couple of years is something to be admired and followed? Pulease.
#9.1 markjensen on 01 Sep 2006 - 18:02
What a beautifully-written troll. "Bending the customer over every couple of years", indeed. Pure poetry.

Some on the F/LOSS side would contend that Microsoft has been bending customers over constantly for years.

It is a matter of perspective, and (in your case) exaggerated imagery.
#9.2 Ryster092 on 01 Sep 2006 - 18:27
Quote - markjensen said @ #9.1
What a beautifully-written troll. "Bending the customer over every couple of years", indeed. Pure poetry.

Some on the F/LOSS side would contend that Microsoft has been bending customers over constantly for years.

It is a matter of perspective, and (in your case) exaggerated imagery.
The point he was making was valid, even though his metaphor was a little crude. Directly comparing application compatibility between major releases of Apple's OS and Windows, it is clear who the winner is. The majority of applications that work on XP will still work on Vista, whereas no OS9 applications worked on OS X.
#9.3 wicker_man on 03 Sep 2006 - 11:15
Quote - Ryster092 said @ #9.2
Quote - markjensen said @ #9.1
What a beautifully-written troll. "Bending the customer over every couple of years", indeed. Pure poetry.

Some on the F/LOSS side would contend that Microsoft has been bending customers over constantly for years.

It is a matter of perspective, and (in your case) exaggerated imagery.
The point he was making was valid, even though his metaphor was a little crude. Directly comparing application compatibility between major releases of Apple's OS and Windows, it is clear who the winner is. The majority of applications that work on XP will still work on Vista, whereas no OS9 applications worked on OS X.

That is why Classic environment was included with every release of OS X up to Panther - to support legacy applications. And you can still run it under Tiger. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
(2 replies) #10 bucko on 01 Sep 2006 - 17:54
I know this is slightly of-topic but I wont be getting Vista until SP1 comes out for it. Everything just seems to new (network stack, audio, the way drivers are done etc) and my system isn't going to run it well considering it's an AMD Duron, 512MB ram, Radeon 9550 (256MB) but if I ever get a Core 2 Duo system ill make sure it will be able to run Vista good. Just looking at all the updates post XP SP2 has makes me shiver, I guess new things are good but I don't feel compelled to use it straight away.
#10.1 Ryster092 on 01 Sep 2006 - 18:30
All the security flaws discovered since SP2 are not a result of SP2 you know. The security vulnerabilities would have existed anyway without SP2. It worth remembering that no software out there is perfect first time, patches will always be necessary. Waiting for SP1 seems pointless. Who's to say the vulnerabilities you are holding out to be fixed wont be discovered and fixed until SP2 or SP3...? How long will you wait? The system will never be perfect.

One final thought. Even though it will not be perfect, Vista WILL be more secure than XP. Therefore, doesn't holding off and staying with XP actually increase your risk...? Just a thought.
#10.2 bucko on 01 Sep 2006 - 19:10
I didn't say all software don't have flaws, and I didn't mean post sp2 patches as a result of SP2. I was just giving an example of how many patches XP has. I just feel that such a new operating system needs to be given a little time to mature. It's just my opinion, don't take it to seriously I need to save up £ for a new PC anyway, and of course Vista. I'm a skint student starting Uni this month .
#11 RAID 0 on 01 Sep 2006 - 18:55
It's not like you can't have another PC with XP on it. As soon as RC1 hits (for beta testers) I'll have a nice complement of OSes. XP, OSX, Vista, and Freespire. By more boxes for a nice choice in what you're looking to get done. I just wish it would hurry up and be on the shelf (Vista) for me to buy. Did I say buy? Wow... times are changing.
(1 reply) #12 daveoc64 on 02 Sep 2006 - 00:14
It makes no sense to offer people the choice of something new and something familiar, they will always go with what they know.

Unless people are given a push in the direction of the future, we will never make any progress.

I can't count how many people said Windows XP was the worst OS ever and that Windows Me was 6000 times better, give them a few days with it and they wont go back from XP.

Apple should not be compared to Microsoft, Apple definitely relies on people upgrading for every OS release. It's harder to get software for earlier versions of OS X and Apple stops making things like iTunes for it eventually.

MS does have a reasonable record of keeping software available to older OS users (such as Windows Media Player and MSN Messenger).

With Apple abandoning support for Mac OS X products made AFTER Windows XP can they really be commended for their upgrade strategies?
#12.1 danj205 on 02 Sep 2006 - 13:38
Quote - daveoc64 said @ #12
I can't count how many people said Windows XP was the worst OS ever and that Windows Me was 6000 times better

Who are these people? Did you turn around and walk away from them? Anyone that thought Windows Me was "good" isn't going to be my friend, that's for sure.

This article was crap anyway. He was talking like Vista was going to be an entirely new system. The thing is, it isn't. Plus, it contains a Program Compatibility Wizard to help broken programs work. While I admit that some older programs do stumble when UAC kicks in, it is pretty good with program support.

I'm thinking we forgot about OS upgrades, seeming it has been so long since we had a definite new Windows version. XP was just as messy, but the world pulled through. And now we are going to have Vista. It's better to have everyone switched over ASAP, than dwindle around for a while. XP is already considered ancient - if Microsoft didn't modify it's product lifecycles Windows XP will be going into an extended support phase at the end of this month.

Plus, perhaps the Apple dual boot was the companies acceptance that OS X just wasn't ready for primetime?
#13 mayamaniac on 02 Sep 2006 - 07:15
Must we post every stupid article about Vista on the front page? The guy who wrote that was clearly an ignorant fool. I'm pretty certain I saw Vista has compatibility tools to run XP apps. Even XP has compatibility tools to run Win2000 or Win98 apps. If anything, it works on better than classic apps in OSX Classic.
(1 reply) #14 ScottKin on 03 Sep 2006 - 05:14
David Morgenstern's article is nothing but pandering to Apple. He must want a new Mac so badly that he's write that crap. Windows Vista is going to increase the desktop market share to 99.99%, and those that want glitz and glamour with their computer can go and buy the ghey-white Mac.
#14.1 wicker_man on 03 Sep 2006 - 11:19
Quote - ScottKin said @ #14
Windows Vista is going to increase the desktop market share to 99.99%, and those that want glitz and glamour with their computer can go and buy the ghey-white Mac.

That is one of the most stupid comments I've seen on Neowin in 3.5 years. 99.9% market share? And you are judging sexual orientation of people by the color of their computer?
I bet you've got a brown one.
(1 reply) #15 JonathanMarston on 03 Sep 2006 - 19:20
Do you really think Microsoft would be allowed to release Vista in the way Apple did? Let's view Apple's release of OS X the way Microsoft's Vista release will be viewed, if Microsoft were to choose to release Vista the same way.



Winter, 2007:

Microsoft releases Windows Vista to the masses, charging $129. It's still got some bugs both major and minor, lacks hardware support, and won't allow you to do certain things that could be done on XP. Microsoft opts not to allow computer manufacturers install Vista on new machines because they want to keep it a "secondary OS" to Windows XP until it's ready for a full release. PC and Mac users alike start flaming Microsoft for charging for an incomplete OS that they don't even feel confident enough in to allow new computers to be sold that include it. Hardly anyone buys it, because who would want to pay to do Microsoft's beta testing for them?



Summer, 2007:

Microsoft releases Windows Vista SP1, charging $129. This time around Vista is less buggy, has better hardware support, and allows you to do most of the things that XP allows you to do. Users further complain that they are charged, yet again, for an incomplete OS, but a few finally bite the bullet and cough up the $129. Mac users continue to mock Microsoft for releasing an incomplete OS in the first place, and then charging for a service pack -- even though Microsoft is following Apple's rollout playbook. Those who did actually buy the first release are enraged that they have to pay for a service pack -- a Microsoft first, even though Apple has been doing it for years



Winter, 2008:

Microsoft finally releases Vista SP2, and Vista is actually a complete OS at this point, and finally release it to be sold along with new computers. Retail boxes are priced $129. Those who purchased every release and service pack of Vista have now paid a full $387 -- more than they would have paid for Vista had Microsoft followed their traditional rollout style. At this point PC users are more than ticked off at Microsoft for following apples "rollout playbook", and, as always, the flames from Mac zealots continue
#15.1 Unplugged on 04 Sep 2006 - 14:20
The problem is that most SP updates are just every patch up to the current and then a few features chucked on top. By charging for SPs people just wont bother upgrading their pcs and patching means that everytime a new virus comes out it spreads like wildfire.

The problem will be doubled this time though as rather than just the old chesnut of "every pirated copy out there causing havoc as they cant update" your going to have the bumper bonus of "every legal copy out there causing havoc as they wont be raped to update"

Microsoft will be pressured into releasing "patch packs" and keeping the extra bloat seprate at the risk of having 50% of the global computers zombie boxes for every flaw and new blaster that comes our way. A problem Apple doesent have.
#16 Xellos on 04 Sep 2006 - 07:25
Is it me or did this article leave out Vista's backwards compatibilty features and the fact that you'll still be able to make it look and run like windows 95 hmmmmmm?
#17 C_Guy on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:12
If we take a lesson from Apple it would be:

-Offer OS 9 "classic" compatibility in the newest Mac operating system
-Decide to start using only Intel processors
-Realize that computers with Intel processors cannot run "classic" applications
-Stop offering "classic" support
-Force Mac customers to switch to newer applications


If we take a lesson from Microsoft it would be:

-Realize that people need compatibility for older programs
-Continue to innovate newer operating systems
-Offer compatibility to run programs in Windows XP, ME, NT, 2000, 98, or even 95
-Continue to offer this compatibility in the newest operating systems like Vista
-Customers stay happy

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)