Linked by Tony Steidler-Dennison on Mon 28th Jul 2008 18:42 UTC, submitted by Dan Warne
Thread beginning with comment 324843
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-12
Maybe it is just me, but I really do not understand Microsoft business tactics here.
MS's business tactics go way back to the start of the industrial revolution. Planned obsolescence. Always have a newer, bigger thing to sell consumers to create a demand for the new product. Killing off the older product simplifies the choices for consumer, i.e., subtle arm twisting to buy the newer, bigger version even though individuals/companies do not need it. Also, having both XP and Vista selling at the same time and watching people choose XP systems is also embarrassing. Plus you have to justify the 6+ years of research and development to your stock holders. Those are all the reasons I can think of for the moment. Also being a monopoly and dictating upgrades to meet MS's needs and not user's needs is a reason.
Edited 2008-07-28 22:12 UTC