Linked by Smith Johnson on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:22 UTC
Windows According to at least one blogger, Microsoft should abandon Vista before it's too late. It would appear he's not alone in this opinion, as Microsoft has begun allowing users to downgrade back to XP. Amongst the reasons? Poor sales figures and shoddy Vista "Extras".
Thread beginning with comment 274781
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
yes
by SK8T on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:34 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

in my opinion, they should.

Edited 2007-09-27 15:35

Reply Score: 19

RE: yes
by Joe User on Thu 27th Sep 2007 18:13 in reply to "yes"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

They should but they won't. For pride. They don't want to look more ridiculous than they already are.

At first sight I thought this news was ridiculous, but I find myself in the same case, I installed Vista and reverted to XP.

Microsoft should have gone the annual subscription way. No need for everending bloat to justify new paid upgrades. Just keep up-to date a better and better product with very little changes, make it more and more secure with no bloat, don't ask people to upgrade, but charge a yearly fee. Heck, you pay $400 for a Windows XP licence that you keep 6 years, if you charge on a monthly basis a subscription fee, that would be $5.5 a month, it's something anybody can afford, and Microsoft would make as much money.

If I were to decide for Microsoft, I would offer both Vista and XP, and I would charge monthly or yearly. I would be able to charge even a little bit more, no one would notice, and I would dedicate less staff for development, basically only what's needed to keep XP up-to-date and more secure. It's all that's needed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: yes
by Kelly Rush on Thu 27th Sep 2007 21:31 in reply to "RE: yes"
Kelly Rush Member since:
2005-06-30

People will not pay for a subscription-based operating system because they like "owning" the files on their computer, and if they get locked out from not paying or canceling a subscription, then they lose their files.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: yes
by bornagainenguin on Thu 27th Sep 2007 21:48 in reply to "RE: yes"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

and Microsoft would make as much money.

That's the fly in the ointment right there. For Microsoft it's not about making as much money; it's about making more money.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: yes
by Coral Snake on Sat 29th Sep 2007 05:05 in reply to "RE: yes"
Coral Snake Member since:
2005-07-07

Just two things wrong with your idea.

1. It will speed up the final mass move to Linux OpenSolaris and Mac.

The people at Ubuntu, Mandriva, SuSE, Red Hat, Apple, Sun Microsystems, IBM, etc. CAN HARDLY WAIT for Micro$oft to start charging rent for Windows and Office.

2. Rent would leave Micro$oft open to government regulation as a "natural" monopoly like electric and water companies and that is the LAST thing they want.

Actually I think the only way for Micro$oft to continue as a viable business would be to give up the OS monopoly and OPEN SOURCE WINDOWS XP (and dump Vista entirely) while keeping the Office and other money producing monopolies it owns.

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE: yes
by flanque on Thu 27th Sep 2007 21:30 in reply to "yes"