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
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
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
...
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.
...
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.
No thanks.
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.
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.
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
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.
and since you're comparing pricetags, i'd rather pay $0 every 6 months, but that's just me
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
-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.