dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika

1 edit
reply to Smokey Bear

Re: Windows 8, and So It Begins - Revolutionary vs. evolutionary

Microsoft needs to return to this long standing every 2 years model. It stops them from biting off more they can chew. Of course it didn't prevent WinMe and DOS 4 but nothing is fool proof.

If Windows isn't broken, don't fix it. Customers don't want change for change's sake. They want reliability. The reason Windows 7 was "friction free" was this exact reason. There was nothing really new, just small tweaks and fixes to Vista.

IOW, revolution breaks everything.



skuv

@rr.com

said by Z80:

Microsoft needs to return to this long standing every 2 years model. It stops them from biting off more they can chew.
What do you mean, "return to it?"

Vista was released in January 2007, XP was released in October 2001. That seems like plenty of time between releases.

Unless you literally mean, 2 years between releases, which means you want Microsoft to take less time between major OS releases.

I'm not sure how that would help matters.


KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

said by skuv :

said by Z80:

Microsoft needs to return to this long standing every 2 years model. It stops them from biting off more they can chew.
What do you mean, "return to it?"

Vista was released in January 2007, XP was released in October 2001. That seems like plenty of time between releases.

Unless you literally mean, 2 years between releases, which means you want Microsoft to take less time between major OS releases.

I'm not sure how that would help matters.
XP lasted much longer than it really should have, IMO. 2 years is a good release cycle. There sure weren't 8 years in between 3.1 to 95; 95 to 98; or even 98 to XP. In terms of software and technology, 8 years for any program puts it into an obsoleted status. One reason people didn't want to switch from XP was simply the fact they were used to it.

8 years is a long time to get used to a piece of software.

If Vista had been released (and completed fully) even 3-4 years earlier (such as 2004 or 2005); it may have been adopted more warmly.


Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
reply to skuv

said by skuv :

said by Z80:

Microsoft needs to return to this long standing every 2 years model. It stops them from biting off more they can chew.
What do you mean, "return to it?"

Vista was released in January 2007, XP was released in October 2001. That seems like plenty of time between releases.

Unless you literally mean, 2 years between releases, which means you want Microsoft to take less time between major OS releases.

I'm not sure how that would help matters.
Exactly. I mean, prior to Vista, MS was releasing an OS about every 2 years going back deep into the 1980s. MS would be best served returning to this pattern that served them so well for more than 2 decades. 2 years isn't enough time to over hype and under deliver. DOS 4 and WinMe are the only real exceptions I can think of in how many releases? A dozen counting the NTs?


seankelly

join:2005-09-05
united kingd
reply to KeepOnRockin

said by KeepOnRockin:

8 years for any program puts it into an obsoleted status. One reason people didn't want to switch from XP was simply the fact they were used to it.
With 8 years and three SPs, XP has matured to the point where it does what people need without too much hassle. I maintain five PCs running XP Pro and on the rare occasion there's a problem, it's generally easy to fix with a quick Google; and I can find a program to do pretty much anything I want. There's simply no need for me (expensively) to update.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
reply to KeepOnRockin

quote:
One reason people didn't want to switch from XP was simply the fact they were used to it.
If it works, and works WELL, why is there is the need to make a new OS? What NEED is there for a person (user) to switch to a new OS?

I don't understand why you think a consumer wants to spend over $200 for an OS every 2 years? Makes zero sense to me.

Vista had problems because it will full of issues - lots of people switched to it - and a lot of those folks talked about how bad it was both in functionality and with hardware. Hardware manufacturers had problems getting drivers out for Vista - be even worse if they went to a 2 year release..
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain


Ryan
Premium
join:2001-03-03
Braintree, MA

said by CylonRed:

I don't understand why you think a consumer wants to spend over $200 for an OS every 2 years? Makes zero sense to me.

A standard priced upgrade for home premium can be purchased for around 100 dollars and oem prices are similar. 100 dollars for the latest OS (as long as it is stable) every 3-5 years seems reasonable to me and I would have no problems spending money to have the latest and "greatest" .

Honestly if we were talking about features that were necessary and an OS I was completely happy with I would still be on windows 2000.

The fact is that with every OS release its not just gui and usability changes there are many changes under the hood. The start of Windows 7 development was a complete cleanup and optimization of the kernel. That with the addition of TRIM support for SSD hard drives alone is worth 100 dollars to me.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 edit

Except you forget that a lot of folks have more than one machine - so for a lot of people you are NOT talking about $100 every 2 years. More like $2-300 as long as it is the Home version. Double, if not more, if more than the home version is needed.

MS needs to rethink the pricing to even have the chance to make the 2 year cycle work.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

said by CylonRed:

Except you forget that a lot of folks have more than one machine - so for a lot of people you are NOT talking about $100 every 2 years. More like $2-300 as long as it is the Home version. Double, if not more, if more than the home version is needed.

MS needs to rethink the pricing to even have the chance to make the 2 year cycle work.
The Home Premium upgrade was $49 and the Professional upgrade was $99.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

Again - for this one OS - past OS's were far more than that and again - people would have been spending more than $100 every 2 years. Pro with 3 PCs in a house would still be over $300 after taxes...
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain



Ryan
Premium
join:2001-03-03
Braintree, MA
reply to CylonRed

said by CylonRed:

Except you forget that a lot of folks have more than one machine - so for a lot of people you are NOT talking about $100 every 2 years. More like $2-300 as long as it is the Home version. Double, if not more, if more than the home version is needed.

MS needs to rethink the pricing to even have the chance to make the 2 year cycle work.
So 150 for a 3 pack then (If you feel the need to upgrade all your computers) Personally I only keep my main PC at the latest and greatest. Even at 150 for 3 pc's I find it very reasonable.

The average home user is not going to need professional. Most home users don't have a domain controller and hell if you really need RDP that bad on every PC install vnc...


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to CylonRed

said by CylonRed:

Again - for this one OS - past OS's were far more than that and again - people would have been spending more than $100 every 2 years. Pro with 3 PCs in a house would still be over $300 after taxes...
Yes, but you're also making assumptions, so my assumption is that upgrades will continue to be sold for the same price for pre-orders. Not only that, you can get a Windows 7 Family Pack (3 licenses) starting as low as $177: »www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows···1&sr=1-1


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

And you have both missed the point again... 3 packs for MS are new and were not available in the past oh - 15+ years where the average price of an upgrade was $89 or $99 PER and another $50-$100 more for full versions.

Again - the every 2 years is problematic because of the cost and issues with getting the software ready on time and with good QA which older OSs from MS had - one reason why "don't buy till the first service pack" mantra was a so popular - and is still popular.

There is zero reason for a new OS every 2 years - none especially for the average user. Most businesses would balk at a new OS every 2 years as well as an unneeded expense and just make supporting multiple OSs for the IT staff.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

I don't think anyone is missing the point. Unless Microsoft stops offering the pre-order pricing or family packs, the "old" pricing model is a moot point. Most people aren't buying upgrades anyway, they get whatever comes with their new PC.

Regardless, I like shiny new things that advance technology, so a new OS every 2 years sounds great to me. I'll make the decision when that OS is released whether I want to upgrade to it or not. I'm sure businesses will do the same thing. They've always held to a 2 year release cycle (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_···releases) with the exception of Vista, so they are just returning to the normal release cycle.



CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

I think if they returned to the 2 year cycle - I think they would stop pretty quickly for lack of adopters to make money. Quality is more important to more folks than quantity. Quantity of OSs in a time period does not equal quality and in fact - if usually not the case and has been seen in their OSs in the past... I don't think they want to get back to the "Wait till the first SP before even thinking of buying" mantra. They may finally see the folly in that.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain



Ryan
Premium
join:2001-03-03
Braintree, MA

said by CylonRed:

I think if they returned to the 2 year cycle - I think they would stop pretty quickly for lack of adopters to make money. Quality is more important to more folks than quantity. Quantity of OSs in a time period does not equal quality and in fact - if usually not the case and has been seen in their OSs in the past... I don't think they want to get back to the "Wait till the first SP before even thinking of buying" mantra. They may finally see the folly in that.
However quality does not equal years in production. Look at vista the release was disastrous due to all the changes it took in one release. Windows 7 had a MUCH shorter development time and the release is superb.


Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
reply to CylonRed

Microsoft made its fortune and grew to own the desktop marketplace with the 2 year cycle model and if the upgrades are even mildly compelling like DOS 5 and 6.2 were, people will pay just as they did before Vista. Remember, Vista was the first deviation from this 2-ish year cycle in the company's history.

Corporate customers rarely upgrade existing desktops anyway. They lease equipment and get whatever OS is out at the time the equipment is leased. If anything, more mild upgrades will make IT departments more apt to accept and upgrade (which was obviously not the case with Vista).