OSNews

You don't know that. You're speculating. Maybe you and the people you've asked say that, but that doesn't quantify to the global population's preferences.

If demand really does drive Vista sales down and XP sales up Microsoft will re-evaluate the situation and either re-list XP or fix Vista.

If people don't like it, they can of coarse choose Linux. It's apparently superior in every way anyways. In fact, superior to every Windows version, ever..

Edited 2007-04-12 02:11

Indeed. But they can "of course" also buy a Mac and use another superior OS (especially once Leopard is released)

Businesses don't want vista right now, and for many, it will be a while before they do. I'm in IT at a hospital, and we're probably going to end up buying a bunch of extra copies of XP incase this really happens. Linux doesn't work in the business world many times; 95% of our applications won't even run on firefox (on windows), and its going to be a long while before they get all the code updated for even IE7/vista (estimates right now are 1 year at the earliest). I use Linux at home, but its going to be a while before it makes big inroads into the corporate world, windows is too entrenched, especially in sectors like healthcare which use a ton of large, custom software apps

No, they won't. Microsoft said that OEMs won't be allowed to sell Windows XP computers past January 2008, and I don't think there's anything that will change their mind. If they extend the OEM licensing contracts, that would be an admission that Vista is not a suitable upgrade for many XP users. Not only would this be incredibly uncharacteristic for Microsoft, but it would irreparably damage the Windows platform. If they let the contracts expire despite significant demand for XP, they screw over their customers and force them away from the Windows platform.

In this context, it makes sense that Microsoft has all but canceled XP SP3 and is quickly sunsetting XP. Sticking with XP is a no-win situation for Microsoft. The future of the company rests with Vista. If they can't whip it into shape and drag their massive ecosystem kicking and screaming from XP to Vista, then they are surely screwed.

They are finding out that hard way that while everybody loves backwards compatibility, you have to break it eventually. The longer you wait, the more likely your installed base will migrate to a competitor when you do.

Vista's strategy of partial backwards compatibility might have been the worst possible decision. They should have either released XP with an updated UI or a brand-new OS. Some of Microsoft's customers wanted backwards compatibility. Others wanted a completely new OS. What they did was give us a compromise between backwards compatibility and a redesigned OS. It's not either of these things, so nobody got what they really wanted. The backwards compatibility folks have to port their applications/drivers and the complete redesign supporters have to live with the vestiges of the Windows legacy.

The key to maintaining a platform is baby steps--small but continuous improvements that keep the technology moving forward with the times without leaving your ecosystem in a lurch. Microsoft has gone and tried to change the world again, but the world has gotten too large and complex to change. They ate their humble pie and scaled it back as much as possible, but there's a limit to how little you can change in a 6-year development cycle. They changed too little since 2001 yet too much since XP. This is what happens when you don't do baby steps.