The software maker’s decision to extend support for many of its products reflects a new reality: Customers are increasingly reluctant to update major software components every few years just to keep up with Microsoft’s shipment schedules.
Microsoft slows to support customers’ pace
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
They finally figured out that people don’t want to be forced to upgrade? Nah, it’s probably that Longhorn is a ways off.
“This just confirms that we made the right decision. We chose SQL Server because we were pleased with Microsoft’s service and support (for Windows). We are a small software company…and we don’t want to do support ourselves,” LaForte said.
What a sheep-like response. Kudos Mircosoft.
Product support was extended from 7 to 10 years.
Seriously why ? I don’t need the hit on resources, eye candy, or stability issues.
Seriously why ? I don’t need the hit on resources, eye candy, or stability issues.
Which makes it nice that they extended product support to 10 years now dosen’t it ?
Some people on these forums are a little *slow* I swear.
“Why would anyone want to use a 10 year old copy of windows instead of Linux?”
1. Comfort level
2. No need for new technologies and applications
3. Works fine as it is
4. Replacement programs might not exist.
“What a sheep-like response. Kudos Mircosoft. ”
Is that anymore a “sheep-like” response, than say when people buy a computer from Dell, and they expect “service and support” from them? Or say someone buys a computer from IBM, or Toshiba, based on their reputation? Remember you have to look at things through other people’s POV.
The reality of it all is Microsoft just figured out their only competitor is themselves…… Don’t flatter yourself into thinking a 10% market share here and a 5% market share there has anything to do with it. Contrary to the popular belief on OSnews, and /., MS is far from on the ropes, in danger of losing market share or in dire straights…. Get over it..
I don’t think there are too many people using Windows 3.1. Maybe it shows my age, but is Windows 95 even 10 years old yet (by first release, not betas and development)?
The points centring around “it already works” can’t be overstated, since that’s how both individuals and businesses operate with nearly everything else in life. Food, Toiletries, Books, Cars, etc. etc. are – for most people – all bought new when needed and when able to be afforded. I wouldn’t consider OSs to be particularly exempt from this pattern, OS hobbyists and developers aside…
[OT] “Comment is currently pending review” on half the comments posted so far? “Report abuse” is being abused perhaps…
I really like the 95/98 products, but dont get me wrong
linux is okay, this box is running suse 9.0 it is a
pIII 550 256 meg job and it is my main machine but
my pI 200 mmx 128 runs just fine on windows 95
and i’ve had slackware, mandrake, redhat, bsd
and suse and that machine,and it runs windows 95 or 98
best
“The points centring around “it already works” can’t be overstated, since that’s how both individuals and businesses operate with nearly everything else in life. Food, Toiletries, Books, Cars, etc. etc. are – for most people – all bought new when needed and when able to be afforded. I wouldn’t consider OSs to be particularly exempt from this pattern, OS hobbyists and developers aside…”
That’s not to say that older versions of Windows ‘work’ in their user’s view. After all: changing an OS is more difficult than buying new Food, Toiletries, Books etc.
Perhaps that’s why the idea/mechanism of “Buying a new PC with every new Windows version” now seems to be pushed?
You see most people wish to see how an OS does before upgrading, and of course costs are a major factor. If Longhorn proves itself unlike XP, then it will see a huge upsurge in upgrades. But please Mr Microsoft, some realistic pricing for a change? I like microsoft products but the prices put me off upgrading.
I agree that most people wish to see how an OS does before upgrading….but (OS hobbyists and developers aside) that’ll be based upon some CNN technology program or an article in the local newspaper. And one shouldn’t forget about the tendency of wanting to have “the latest because that’s allways the greatest”.
win95+office97 will run pretty well on 16 MB to 32 MB of memory
Try that with gnome/kde + OOo ?
Try that with BeOS R5+Gobe2 and both your computer and your idea of ‘pretty well’ will experience a tremendous upgrade…
win95+office97 will run pretty well on 16 MB to 32 MB of memory
Try that with gnome/kde + OOo ?
There are plenty of DE options for old computers, besides KDE and Gnome, and some look pretty good compared to Windows 95. And of course they don’t give you a BSOD just because you pulled the printer plug too fast or looked funny at the keyboard.
Win95 and Office97 run fine on those old machines because they were made for those kind of machines. Then you try to compare with Gnome, KDE and OOo which are built with another spec in mind, so it’s not a fair comparison.
The company, which makes software to help Web customers make buying decisions, chose to buy Microsoft’s SQL Server database over the open-source MySQL database several months ago.
Quite what that has to do with the article, I don’t know, but I suppose Microsoft had to get it in.
“This just confirms that we made the right decision. We chose SQL Server because we were pleased with Microsoft’s service and support (for Windows). We are a small software company…and we don’t want to do support ourselves,” LaForte said.
So Microsoft technicians come came into your company and set it up all for you, did they? Not only that, but you have a phone number you can call so a Microsoft technician can come in and fix things at a moments notice? I’m not quite sure that Microsoft understands the meaning of support. As a small company, if you buy Microsoft you’re still on your own as you have to install and administer everything, or you’ll still need a local company to support you. I’m not even sure how Microsoft is relevant there.
“It’s a pretty small percentage of customers on NT 4.0, less than 20 percent. But the vast majority of customers will move by the end of this year,”
That’s news to me. There are a lot of businesses still using NT 4.0 and are not planning any kind of mass upgrade. New computers get upgraded piece-meal now, and those of course have Windows XP on them, so that is generally the only upgrading that gets done.
O’Grady said customer support has become an important avenue, however, for Microsoft to distinguish itself from products based on the open-source Linux operating system.
See above. Microsoft thinks that support is sitting in Redmond, knocking out nothing but bits of software and fixes for download on Windows Update and collecting billions of dollars for it. It isn’t.
“That’s the biggest knock against Linux, the lack of support,” he said. “Lengthening support policies is part of Microsoft’s attempting to extend the value they perceive in their approach.”
OK. So what are all those companies supporting Linux-based systems doing then?
Support has become a key selling point for Microsoft as it competes with Linux and open-source software in general, said Tom Rizzo, Microsoft’s director of product management for SQL Server. He said customers like to know whom to turn to when there’s a problem. “Support is a big concern for customers as well,” he said. “We’re one neck to choke. On open-source, I don’t know.”
If Microsoft have really shifted their ideas to charging for support, and this is their idea of that support, then long-term they are in really, really serious trouble. They won’t necessarily have the comfort revenue of Windows and Office to fall onto.
The arguments against using open source software are also getting extremely weak now. They persist in spreading this message that companies will be on their own if they go that route, but many, many people now know that IBM and HP, right down to local companies, are providing more support than Microsoft ever could. Yes, Microsoft have Gold and Silver certified partners, but the cost of paying for the software, the hardware, the installation, the administration and the actual physical support is just astronomical. They really can’t hope to compete with that, and the cost of software licenses is what people are looking to take out first in that chain because they don’t see what they get for them. Ongoing software support charges are just software licenses under another name, and Sun would do well to heed that as well.
It’s rather sad to see a company that has lived on the gravy-train on another planet for most of its history, trying to re-invent itself into something that it doesn’t understand.
Quote: “win95+office97 will run pretty well on 16 MB to 32 MB of memory
Try that with gnome/kde + OOo ?”
I like using a machine that has a few less holes then a slice of cheese. Windows 95 is more holy then the bible. I guess you will be fine running 95 on 16 MB of ram as long as you don’t put it up on the internet. LOL! You know if you do you will have spyware and key loggers faster then you can type http://www.osnews.com.
I am running Mandrake 10 with XFCE on a AMD K62 333 with 32 MB of ram and it runs fine. Yes OpenOffice takes forever to load but I am running the OOo quick loader so it’s ok. I feel much safer then running 95/98 and that joke of an OS Windows ME. No defraging, scandisking, Virus Scaner or Popup blocking software slowing down my machine. No rebooting. (Other then restarting X real quick maybe once a month.) And no worries about having to reload my OS a couple of times a year cause the performance goes to crap.
2000 and XP are ok. Little less holy then the bible. But if your profile gets over 1 GB performance goes to crap. If you need to do development work lord you need a super computer. I work for the US government and we have to give the developers using Windows 2000 P4 2GH or higher machines with at least 1GB of ram just for people to work.
I am not one to say Linux is so much better. But I can say that there are no Billion $ companies making Linux (Besides Novell which just started) yet Windows is not much better. More mature yes, better no. (Meaning there are featured in Windows that are not in Linux but it’s not that they can’t be in Linux. Windows has a 10 year head start and Microsoft it’s self has a 20 year headstart at making software)
OO.o was not around 10 years ago so the comparison is unfair.
Mandrake runs really slow on my p4 2.4ghz machine! Try getting the nvidia drivers to work without spending a day messing with the whole stupid linux thing.
The fact most Linux users don’t like is that Windows works, is very well supported and will outlast Linux no problem whatsoever.
Remember linux = hobbiest.
Windows = 95% computer users in the world!
You cannot argue with popularity can you?
Stupidity is pretty popular.
It would be nice to have people have a greater reason to upgrade, like not having support any more. It would be a whole lot nicer if no one was using any version of windows pre-2k. A lot less support for developers, less virus do to more secure computers, less headaches for MS to.
But on the other side this anouncement probably means next to nothing for home users, really how many people have ever used any form of MS support in anyway. The closest thing that counts is windows update. And the people who know anough to run it and use it probably also upgrade their OS’s routinely.
I can see corporate users seeing this as more important.
Popularity my ass.
Don’t know what you do with your mandrake, but perhaps you just do silly wrong.
Windows works? Not for me. With windows, I have no SSH, no Xserver. We are living in the time of networks and the internet and to get some cool remote access to a windows machine, you have to buy a server edition and stuff.
Windows is well supported? Thats true, but my hardware also works fine under Linux and there I have really cooler drivers. You want an example? Just compare video4linux and a really cool app like tvtime with the crap you have to use that comes with your tv card…
Windows will outlast Linux? Shurely not.
Linux = hobbiest? You really can tell that, in times where great companys work with it for years? At my university, computer science dep. where I study everyone works with linux. You want windows? You get a laugh there. Only hobbiist computer users use that crap, they will tell you..
Just open your eyes a little bit to see more than your simple “facts” about popularity. Then you can compare a reasonable way.
OLd pc’s run fine with linux if you look further then KDE, Gnome and OOo.
Try Debian Linux with Fluxbox window manager ,Abiword and Gnumeric. That’ll run very good, and apart from the old 15″ monitor and no scrollwheel mouse I couldn’t say it’s such an old machine. XFCE is a nice desktop environment too, slower then fluxbox on a p1, but it is very easy for the regular computer user. Not that fluxbox is hard, but with XFCE people see directly how it works with the easy icons and popup menu’s. And shutdown button ihmo.
By the way… Mr. ‘Of Course’ , I use linux because it takes me no work to maintain the pc.
No spyware, no viruses, no cleaning of the clumsy registry, no defragment, no scanning for errors on the drive , …
I use less time to install the OS and less to install the programs.
I don’t need to tweak Linux to get decent performance.
That spares me a lot of time.
Try getting the nvidia drivers to work without spending a day messing with the whole stupid linux thing.
Have you seen what happens when someone non-technical (and I do not use that word in a derisory sense at all) tries to install graphics drivers on Windows, and installs them over the top of the existing drivers?
Windows does not just work for many people, and that is something even Steve Vaughan-Nichols doesn’t seem to understand. Installing drivers for Windows for anyone who isn’t familiar with the concept or with what they are actually installing, is not damn easy. It doesn’t matter how nice and graphical it is.
The only reason why Windows appears to just work, is that in many cases it is pre-installed and loaded with all the drivers. People then leave it that way for years, until they have to update their drivers for a new game, or a new piece of hardware. Then all hell breaks loose as various people try to recover the system, and then just do a complete re-install.
We need a much easier, built-in and automatic solution to drivers, and Linux desktops are on actually their way to providing that. Most drivers are actually built into the kernel and just work (I’ve never needed to install motherboard drivers to use Linux), and for people who just buy their PCs at the local PC World, that’s the way it should be.
Customers are increasingly reluctant to update major software components every few years just to keep up with Microsoft’s shipment schedules.
There is a simple solution to this.
Microsoft can make *binary* compatibility hell,
like it is in Linux. So the customers will be
FORCED to upgrade.
Ever tried running RedHat 5.2 rpms in Redhat 7
or anything similar?
Yeah, I know, we also have the source. I don’t care
about the source.
“It’s a pretty small percentage of customers on NT 4.0, less than 20 percent. But the vast majority of customers will move by the end of this year,”
“That’s news to me. There are a lot of businesses still using NT 4.0 and are not planning any kind of mass upgrade. New computers get upgraded piece-meal now, and those of course have Windows XP on them, so that is generally the only upgrading that gets done.”
It’s news to me also. Even if the 20% were accurate, that is a LOT of systems. NT4 certainly has it’s share of shortcomings; however there are a lot of servers still running it and believe it or not in a rather stable fashion.
See, I knew it.
Sooner or later, someone else would post what I was thinking. =)
Windows works? Not for me. With windows, I have no SSH, no Xserver.
SSH can be had with Putty
SFTP with WinSCP
X with Cygwin
Total cost = 0
If you want a better X solution you’ll have to pay, that’s just the way of the Windows world I’m afraid.
Linux distros ship with huge amounts of software, Windows has huge amounts available separately.
It’s not hard to see why this difference exists. I’m not an MS fan, but it’s not fair to criticise lack of an X server when they just their backsides spanked over bundling a media player.
In fact I’m surprised MS aren’t being sued for monopoly abuse because they bundle Notepad with the OS. Surely someone somewhere is having trouble competing with it :>
Upgrading Windows itself with or without PC hardware update is LEAST pain and pocket-cleaner.
Real problem rises if/when application softare which costs tens and hundred times more than Windoze stops working under new system. Same with some specifical hardware.
It’s quite usual situation in industry and science.
Quote
I like using a machine that has a few less holes then a slice of cheese. Windows 95 is more holy then the bible. I guess you will be fine running 95 on 16 MB of ram as long as you don’t put it up on the internet. LOL! You know if you do you will have spyware and key loggers faster then you can type http://www.osnews.com.
End Quote
The fact of the matter is, if I want to use my 166mhz 48mb ram machine as a workstation, .
Do you really expect people to switch from something that works well on old, old ass machines (95) and use something that (atleast in this case) can’t have a GUI? Fluxbox doesn’t work with it. XD
“OMG BUT TEH SECURITY HOELS R TEH BAD!”
Luckily I have a firewall (hardware and software), and the ability to download security updates.
I use Thinstation (http://thinstation.sf.net) to use very old machines like Pentium 100 with 16MB of RAM or even 486 with 16MB RAM as X terminals and RDP terminals. With this trick I can run OpenOffice, KDE 3.2.2 and Windows 2003 Server on these modest machines. And the machines don’t need hard disks or CDROM to boot.
Damn straight, don’t these no-knowledge Windows zeolots who think their failures define the technical capabilities of the hardware drive you around the bend? I ran RedHat 5.2 and Caldera (!) on a dual p1-133 for years until the motherboard finally failed. FVWM, Fluxbox, Blackbox, and Windowmaker all ran fine.
The reality of it all is Microsoft just figured out their only competitor is themselves…… Don’t flatter yourself into thinking a 10% market share here and a 5% market share there has anything to do with it. Contrary to the popular belief on OSnews, and /., MS is far from on the ropes, in danger of losing market share or in dire straights…. Get over it..
The problem is that it will not be 5% here or 10% there. If and when people do switch to something non-Microsoft it will happen in a flood because people will turn around and look at what everyone else is doing and do it. Microsoft has needed to try and eliminate that possibility if people won’t upgrade.
Quote: Luckily I have a firewall (hardware and software), and the ability to download security updates.
Hummm, as far I I can tell MS stopped putting out patches for 95/98. They have not updated IE for 95/98 in 2 or more years. And wow I have IP tables in Linux (Part of the OS not third party crap that slowwwwwwwwwws your PC down like zone alarm)
Also people don’t read. People keep saying “Windows works” And that Linux is a hobby OS. First off like I said Windows is more mature with a 10 year head start. Yet what is the number one thing on Bill Gates mind?? Linux! The hobby OS. I mean with all the BILLIONS they have we should not even be having this convo. Windows should be SOOOOO good that no one can even talk about it. But it’s not.
We all the know the truth that if there was no Linux Microsoft would not even be rushing Longhorn out. They would be force feeding you patches to XP for the next 3 years so they can just keep rolling in the money. If there was no Linux we wouldn’t be on here talking right now.
Yes right now Windows “works” better because companies make their drivers and products for Windows. But that does not make it a better OS. Just makes it more mature. Not better. But Linux is coming up fast. And it’s open. I am not STUCK with whatever MS gives me.
And people act as if Linux is not getting better. Like hardware support is not getting better. People also act as if lack of support of some hardware is a shortcoming of Linux but it is not. It’s lack of support for Linux by the hardware vendors.
“The problem is that it will not be 5% here or 10% there. If and when people do switch to something non-Microsoft it will happen in a flood because people will turn around and look at what everyone else is doing and do it. Microsoft has needed to try and eliminate that possibility if people won’t upgrade.”
All Microsoft did was keep a lot of customers who were considering doing “something”, from doing anything. It will hurt their own sales to some degree, as the update path for many was none other than a newer version of Windows.
It’s one thing to change the OS you run on a home workstation; it’s quite another matter to do this in the business world. The issue is not what OS, it’s all of the other programs that need to run on top of the OS. Many times swapping out an OS in a corporate setting could take years of planning.
“Have you seen what happens when someone non-technical (and I do not use that word in a derisory sense at all) tries to install graphics drivers on Windows, and installs them over the top of the existing drivers?”
He runs screaming to someone geeky enough (and I do not use that word in a bad sense at all) to be surprised how easy rollback driver feature works in Windows XP.
I am sure Linux has similar feature. Tell us about it.
“Windows does not just work for many people”
500,000,000 and counting is not many. I am sure Linux works for more people. How many non-technical people find Linux just works for them?
“Installing drivers for Windows for anyone who isn’t familiar with the concept or with what they are actually installing, is not damn easy.”
Which means people usually do not spend their time installing drivers. They prefer to use computer for something else.
“People then leave it that way for years, until they have to update their drivers for a new game, or a new piece of hardware. Then all hell breaks loose as various people try to recover the system, and then just do a complete re-install.”
System Recovery. Driver Rollback. They do exist.
“Most drivers are actually built into the kernel and just work (I’ve never needed to install motherboard drivers to use Linux), and for people who just buy their PCs at the local PC World, that’s the way it should be.”
Then, people leave it that way for years, until they have to update their drivers for a new game, or a new piece of hardware. Then all hell breaks loose as various people try to recover the system, and then just do a complete re-install.
You see, I can spread FUD too, using your exact words. You know what is funny: the stories you tell are actually true for Windows 95/ME and any modern Linux distro, but not for Windows XP.
You could guess who listens to customers, non-technical users, and who just scratches his/her itch. Surely good developers have no problem dealing with driver installation, it is not their itch to scratch. It shows.
Was cut off before mandatory example.:)
Windows 98SE, installed wrong printer driver, no warnings- lost OS, preferred to do full reinstall rather than trying to fix.
Windows XP, fresh from Microsoft, installed non-Microsoft VPN driver. Was told during installation that driver is not for that OS, ignored that. Was told that there is known bug which will prevent driver from working. Ignored that.
Installed that VPN driver, lost network. Uninstalled driver- network didn’t come back. Something was left somewhere by that non-Microsoft piece of s…oftware.
Man, was I furious at myself. So, went to System Restore, click-click-click-reboot, bingo! Network is back, crap is gone, I’m happy.
So, feel free to tell stories about how Windows is not working for *you* and how *you* struggle to make it work when *you* are forced to use it- but please, don’t make stories about drivers’ installation under Windows. People might think yuo still run Windows ME or just don’t know what are you talking about.
Yes, System Restore is a great feature that is MANDATORY for Windows. You don’t need it for Linux. I also hope you dedicated enough space to your System Restore to hold enough snapshots to rollback to a working system. Oh, and remember you’re rolling back the ENTIRE system. You’ll have to reinstall all the other drivers you were updating before the ONE driver screwed everything up.
“System Restore is a great feature that is MANDATORY for Windows. You don’t need it for Linux.”
Why is that? Dumb people don’t use Linux?
“I also hope you dedicated enough space to your System Restore to hold enough snapshots to rollback to a working system.”
We are talking non-technical users, right? Those who install new driver once they get a new piece of hardware, correct? How many snapshots do you need for them?
Besides, old snapshots will be removed, if system restore runs out of disk space.
“You’ll have to reinstall all the other drivers you were updating before the ONE driver screwed everything up.”
It is assuming very uncommon situation of installing multiple drivers at once and not setting System restore point between them.
Let me tell you a secret: in some cases System Restore will set a recovery point without your intervention- when Windows feels you are about to screw the system. Installing drivers comes to mind as an example.:)
Besides, if you install many drivers- rollback them all at once and try one by one to see which one is bad.
In my real case with VPN stuff what I rolled back was just VPN.
System Restore saved me a day. It is very good new feature that should be mandatory for any decent OS, not just Windows. The days of overwriting good stuff by bad stuff and not having any chance to go back automagically by doing click-click-click should be in the past.
All Microsoft did was keep a lot of customers who were considering doing “something”, from doing anything. It will hurt their own sales to some degree, as the update path for many was none other than a newer version of Windows.
Unfortunately, the article does not mention that this extension of support does not cover NT 4.0 or Exchange 5.5. A lot of people are going to have to consider doing something at some point.
It’s one thing to change the OS you run on a home workstation; it’s quite another matter to do this in the business world. The issue is not what OS, it’s all of the other programs that need to run on top of the OS. Many times swapping out an OS in a corporate setting could take years of planning.
Alternatives are already pervalent on the server-side, and those alternatives are out there in the business world. They are not just home hobby stations.
Yes, changing operating systems over is a huge undertaking, particularly on the desktop of course. However, does that mean people shouldn’t plan? It isn’t really a good enough counter-point.
The arguments against using open source software are also getting extremely weak now. They persist in spreading this message that companies will be on their own if they go that route, but many, many people now know that IBM and HP, right down to local companies, are providing more support than Microsoft ever could.
The issue of support has little to do with open source. The overwhelming majority of customers pay for support and never crack the source code. Whether you pay IBM or HP or MS doesn’t really matter. The fact is that there is no free lunch, despite what Linux zealots would like people to believe.
Yes, Microsoft have Gold and Silver certified partners, but the cost of paying for the software, the hardware, the installation, the administration and the actual physical support is just astronomical. They really can’t hope to compete with that, and the cost of software licenses is what people are looking to take out first in that chain because they don’t see what they get for them. Ongoing software support charges are just software licenses under another name, and Sun would do well to heed that as well.
Oh, puh-lease. And you think that IBM and HP are cheap by comparison?!? Get real. You either don’t know what you’re talking about — or you’re deliberately sowing FUD.
It’s rather sad to see a company that has lived on the gravy-train on another planet for most of its history, trying to re-invent itself into something that it doesn’t understand
What’s more sad is to see a bunch of Linux zealots grasping at straws — the issue-of-the-moment (i.e. MS security, support, etc) and wondering when “the big flood of migration to Linux” will occur. Here’s a clue: Most customers treat their computers like you would a hammer. It sits in their toolchest. When it’s not visible, they don’t think about it. When they need it, they take it out and use it; then, back to the toolchest. They don’t sit there, wringing their hands and crying over the cost of Windows licenses and support. That is a fantasy of yours. Think I’m wrong? Great. Go ahead. Keep your delusion. But consider the fact that, even with a cost of $0, Linux still isn’t compelling to more than a thimbleful of geeks (the same guys in high school who wore pocket protectors and couldn’t get a date to save their lives). I know that’s gotta hurt. But reality bites.
Did anyone here actually try to do something like download a service pack for W98? I did just yesterday because my Dad’s PC runs 98. The “download” link for the W98 service pack is actually a link to the XP order page. That is what Microsoft calls “support” for older OSes.
Wow, it’s so difficult to find Win98 updates. It took me 2 seconds in Google ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/corporate.asp ) /SARCASM
You might want to consider getting on the waiting list for a clue transplant.
“Most customers treat their computers like a hammer”
You’re talking about the group of customers who often get angry at their PC, when their OS is the culprit. Howcome? They never knew anything other than Windows, which has never been intuïtive, clear and insightful in the new concept of personal computing. (You’ll fully understand what I mean if you try BeOS for an hour or so, for comparison) Now with XP already taking over control in many ways, Windows is cashing in on the ignorance they’ve inflicted in their userbase for years on end.
A PC will remain a hammer to many, “thanks” to Windows.
A PC will remain a hammer to many, “thanks” to Windows.
Of course. People don’t even know what an operating system is. To them, it’s like a brand name on an appliance. And we shouldn’t fault them for that; there’s simply no reason for anyone to have to have an elaborate understanding of their computers.
Wow, it’s so difficult to find Win98 updates. It took me 2 seconds in Google ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/corporate.asp ) /SARCASM
You might want to consider getting on the waiting list for a clue transplant.
You obviously didn’t bother to check any further than that page. It’s not a service pack, it’s a series of security updates. Each one must be applied individually and rely on you having the latest service pack already installed. If you scroll down to what APPEARS to be the service pack, following the link AGAIN leads to the XP order page, not the update file.
You are the one needing the clue-by-4.
“there’s simply no reason for anyone to have to have an elaborate understanding of their computers.”
An elaborate understanding: no
A better understanding: absolutely
I see the annoyed Windows people have come out in force, full of the joys of System Restore and other Windows wonders. Seems like I’ve annoyed some people again…
He runs screaming to someone geeky enough (and I do not use that word in a bad sense at all) to be surprised how easy rollback driver feature works in Windows XP.
He then screams in terror as System Restore miserably fails to work (sometimes trashing the whole machine), perhaps due to the fact that the person has needed to run anti-virus software for all of those viruses they keep getting over broadband or through e-mail and Outlook. Rolling back a virus? It’s been done.
Anyone worth their salt, and especially someone who administers desktops in a business setting, knows to SWITCH OFF System Restore. Many drivers do not react very well to it at all, and you NEVER, EVER use it when running anti-virus software.
System Restore isn’t an exact science – as J.F. pointed out you are rolling back the system, not specific events. Because of the use of system restore points it can lump any number of events into each one. When you roll-back – poof – you’ve lost your display drivers, or you’ve rolled back the installation of many pieces of software. Worse, it can have extremely strange effects on a lot of software that is not installed through the Microsoft Installer (msi). Even if you’ve installed through msi, if you roll back a driver you can find that software uninstalled as well. It also has a detrimental effect on system performance.
Please don’t quote System Restore as an answer to peoples’ prayers. It isn’t, as everyone who knows their stuff should now know.
I am sure Linux has similar feature. Tell us about it.
It doesn’t need it. Most drivers are installed directly into the kernel (I’ve never had to install motherboard drivers). I’m not sure I’m keen on a bit of software uninstalling things I didn’t want uninstalled as part of trying to roll something else back. However, given the good package management and dependencies systems available it should certainly be very possible.
Which means people usually do not spend their time installing drivers. They prefer to use computer for something else.
Err, people do need to install drivers for Windows. New display drivers, new motherboard drivers, wireless drivers – they’re not easy for everyone to install at all. That’s why we need something better.
System Recovery. Driver Rollback. They do exist.
Yer. They don’t work reliably enough to use, especially in a business environment. That’s why they (as well as driver signing – saints preserve us!) get turned off. If you’ve installed much software, or worse, you have custom Visual Basic apps and DLLs installed, you haven’t got a clue where you are with these things turned on.
Then, people leave it that way for years, until they have to update their drivers for a new game, or a new piece of hardware. Then all hell breaks loose as various people try to recover the system, and then just do a complete re-install.
People leave it that way for years, until they have to update their drivers for a new game or a new piece of hardware. The driver modules needed in the kernel are loaded (or the online update downloads the correct drivers and updates the system) without the user needing to do anything, and the new game or hardware then runs.
If the worst does come, because of the modular nature of the system, the offending components can be updated or uninstalled and reconfigured. This means that a reinstall is not necessary as a technician (as someone would do with Windows) can quickly find out where the problem actually lies and sort it out for you. Without service packs, patches or a re-install you can’t readily do this with Windows.
That’s the way it should work
. It doesn’t quite work that way for Linux yet, mostly because of the lack of really broad driver support, but it’ll get there.
You could guess who listens to customers, non-technical users, and who just scratches his/her itch.
Yes, you certainly can
. Itch scratching. Did you pick that up from Slashdot in your learning about open source software?
Windows 98SE, installed wrong printer driver, no warnings- lost OS, preferred to do full reinstall rather than trying to fix.
Now I really know you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go ahead and fix a closed source, non-modular operating system and drivers along with all of the installed registry keys and other bits and pieces with it. Anyway, you could do a re-install of the system files but that didn’t always work for drivers as they were installed at a lower of the system.
Please don’t talk to people about Windows unless you’ve used it in a serious environment please.
Man, was I furious at myself. So, went to System Restore, click-click-click-reboot, bingo! Network is back, crap is gone, I’m happy.
Did it really? How fabulous. Once you’ve used a system for many weeks or months (i.e. not half an hour), and you’ve actually done many things with it, things gradually go down hill.
So, feel free to tell stories about how Windows is not working for *you* and how *you* struggle to make it work when *you* are forced to use it- but please, don’t make stories about drivers’ installation under Windows.
I’m afraid this isn’t made up, as anyone worth their salt well knows. See above.
People might think you still run Windows ME…
As Windows ME is not very old, used by many people, and people have paid money for it I would hope it would work
. Of course the mantra of “Upgrade to Windows XP!” and “Are you still using that version of Windows?” is used as a solution to the problem. Non-technical people do not upgrade their operating systems.
…or just don’t know what are you talking about.
See above.
Let me tell you a secret: in some cases System Restore will set a recovery point without your intervention- when Windows feels you are about to screw the system. Installing drivers comes to mind as an example.:)
Yes I know, and especially if you’ve been running a system for some time, it doesn’t work like that. Many drivers don’t react well at all to System Restore (some installation manuals tell you to turn it off!), and anti-virus software….. See above.
The days of overwriting good stuff by bad stuff and not having any chance to go back automagically by doing click-click-click should be in the past.
Click-click-click…LOL. Alternatively of course, this shouldn’t be necessary and shouldn’t happen in the first place
.
Oh, here we go. I knew these comments would get people irritated. Can you lot learn to reply to subjects in the subject line? That way people know what you’re talking about.
The issue of support has little to do with open source. The overwhelming majority of customers pay for support and never crack the source code. Whether you pay IBM or HP or MS doesn’t really matter. The fact is that there is no free lunch, despite what Linux zealots would like people to believe.
Err, no one is saying there is a free lunch (there you go – can’t get away from that word), but you should decide how you pay for, it how you eat your it, how much you eat and how often you eat. If HP or IBM cannot patch your software then someone else will. You’re paying for it. It is the process of open source software that matters.
Linux is still based very much on free software. It is the wider process of that open source development that matters, not individuals or end-users looking at the source code. You can choose who will provide your support, and if you ask your support company to do something they jump to it without telling you that you need to buy and install several pieces of meaningless software that you see in all those Windows magazines.
Oh, puh-lease. And you think that IBM and HP are cheap by comparison?!? Get real. You either don’t know what you’re talking about — or you’re deliberately sowing FUD.
What makes you think only HP or IBM will provide support? (Classic one-size-fits-all thinking) Large companies will probably need what they provide, but not others. The problem with Microsoft and their partners is that something always leads onto something else. As a small business you don’t want to pay for Exchange but you want a basic POP/SMTP server. Microsoft’s answer “Oh, but you’ll need Exchange eventually.” Microsoft software doesn’t do something that should be obvious? “Buy Certified Partner services.” Anti-virus software (buy that), back-up solutions (buy that)…. The list goes on, and a lot of SMEs will know what I’m talking about here.
At least with a large contract, such as those with IBM, when you ask them to do something they are round doing it.
You can call it FUD if you like, but it isn’t.
What’s more sad is to see a bunch of Linux zealots grasping at straws — the issue-of-the-moment (i.e. MS security, support, etc) and wondering when “the big flood of migration to Linux” will occur.
On the server side it has already happened, no matter how much Microsoft pays IDC to make Windows look better buy insisting on talking about market share in terms of revenue
. Since Windows licenses are more expensive, and Microsoft can add other server software in, this results in a greater market share for Windows.
Here’s a clue: Most customers treat their computers like you would a hammer. It sits in their toolchest. When it’s not visible, they don’t think about it. When they need it, they take it out and use it; then, back to the toolchest.
LOL!! This is Windows we’re talking about here? Here’s a clue; that’s certainly how it should work, but there’s a crucial difference. A hammer doesn’t walk off somewhere or make decisions to do things by itself. The reason why people cling on to Windows, or sign large support contracts is because they don’t trust their tools
.
They don’t sit there, wringing their hands and crying over the cost of Windows licenses and support.
You think SMEs, or even large companies, don’t complain about the cost of licenses? Yes they do, but in many cases they’re locked into it or don’t know any better. That is slowly changing, which is really starting to p*** a lot of worried people off.
Great. Go ahead. Keep your delusion.
And you keep yours, but your comment above is literally dripping with worry. If my comment was delusional then why reply to it in the way that you have?
But consider the fact that, even with a cost of $0, Linux still isn’t compelling to more than a thimbleful of geeks (the same guys in high school who wore pocket protectors and couldn’t get a date to save their lives). I know that’s gotta hurt. But reality bites.
Yer it really hurts that many, many, many companies – large and small – turn to Linux to get reliable computing, particularly on the server side. I don’t know. Maybe all those multi-billion financial companies, companies like Daimler-Chrysler and the guys at Google all wear pocket protectors and can’t get a date to save their lives. Somehow I doubt it.
Sorry, but the extreme worry just springs out of your comment. If you’re this stressed maybe this is the wrong industry for you?
Quote: Of course. People don’t even know what an operating system is. To them, it’s like a brand name on an appliance. And we shouldn’t fault them for that; there’s simply no reason for anyone to have to have an elaborate understanding of their computers.
No that should not have an elaborate understanding of their computer but they should know like they know that a new car should not over heat or breakdown it should be the same for their computer. But most people believe the Microsoft way and that is that software is not reliable and it’s everyone else’s fault but their own that people put spyware, worms and viruses on your computer. And that it is standard practice to reboot all the time etc.
Yes Linux is not the answer to all and it too has problems but I do know that when I gave my roommate, my mother, my brother and my Girlfriend PC’s pre loaded with Linspire (Lindows) I haven’t gotten any crazy phone calls about problems since. (And it’s been almost a year) I call my Girlfriend and my brother all the time and I always ask them if they have any problems. My brother has had a few (mostly the fact that Gaim doesn’t have all the features of AIM or Yahoo IM) but nothing that he would need help with. My girlfriend has had no problems at all. She loves it. (Her PC was a replacement for an XP machine that got killed by the blaster)
The Linux excuse is that because it doesn’t install perfect on every machine it sucks. But there are plenty of preloaded Linux machines and machines that work well with Linux. It’s just a matter of time through companies like IBM, Novell and Sun. Linux will be better.
I agree it’s a matter of time. As Pc’s are around longer, people will no doubt become more and more computer-savvy, despite Microsoft with its blunt and respectless attitude slowing down this process.
“Have you seen what happens when someone non-technical (and I do not use that word in a derisory sense at all) tries to install graphics drivers on Windows, and installs them over the top of the existing drivers?”
He runs screaming to someone geeky enough (and I do not use that word in a bad sense at all) to be surprised how easy rollback driver feature works in Windows XP.
I am sure Linux has similar feature. Tell us about it.
———————————————————-
Last time I screwed up getting my graphics card driver working in Linux, I couldnt even boot into a GUI to fix it! It would just crash upon boot up. Now, there is the command line to fix things, but a graphical environment for fixing such a problem is much easier to deal with…
On the Windows side, when I have had driver issues with the video card, I am atleast booted into a low res, 16 color GUI. Thats atleast a start so I can easily access the device manage quickly and easily and reinstall or roll back my driver.
I also have to ask, what is a non technical person supposed to do when he messses up his video card driver in Linux and cant even get into his system and doesnt know how to fix it? Seems ok to ask it about Windows, so what about Linux now?
Try running a Windows 2000 app in Windows 95 or Win 3.1 Or a Windows 95 or Win 3.1 based app which requires some dos code in Windows 2000.
i wouldn’t be surprised if their sales and marketing team is larger than their coding team.
i think they are going to keep up the same pace and keep support for older products and..and.. say they are an even better software company since they slowed it down and still managed to produce such products at such quality
Hehe … I love watching the responses.
The only reason we were “forced” to upgrade our servers on campus to the “other platform” 2003 server from NT4 was due to the “other platform” exchange server. It “must” have the “other platform” active directory services to function properly. For the “other platform” active directory services to function properly all the “other platform” servers, in this case NT4, must be upgraded to 2000 or 2003.
We completed our migration around the Christmas holiday last year. Now our mail servers run fine.
“Deep Freeze” is an excellent solution for “other” platform” 9x, ME, 2K, and X-tra P-lump users. Seriously. This product helps reduce sys admin calls by 70 to 80 percent. Just make sure you partition a drive and leave it un-frozen for data storage documents. Given the “other platform” issues with viruses and user-caused failures from downloading cr@pware – it is a huge workload saver. I use it on my 117 four-lab areas.
It allows sys admins to break away from the clients and focus the resources on our servers.
My 117 clients spread accross four lab-classrooms.
What bother me the most about Windows is that any piece of crappy software can bring Windows to it’s knee. The other day I download and install Zonealarm 5.0, the most crappiest software I ever installed. You couldn’t even use Ctrl-Alt-Delete to kill the program, I had to do a hard boot. This is on a Windows XP Pro. So when I hear people say that if you had a sucky software that’s freezing up on your nice XP computer just use the three finger salute and kill it, obviously never installed Zonealarm 5.
What bother me the most about Windows is that any piece of crappy software can bring Windows to it’s knee. The other day I download and install Zonealarm 5.0, the most crappiest software I ever installed. You couldn’t even use Ctrl-Alt-Delete to kill the program, I had to do a hard boot. This is on a Windows XP Pro. So when I hear people say that if you had a sucky software that’s freezing up on your nice XP computer just use the three finger salute and kill it, obviously never installed Zonealarm 5.
Err, no one is saying there is a free lunch (there you go – can’t get away from that word), but you should decide how you pay for, it how you eat your it, how much you eat and how often you eat. If HP or IBM cannot patch your software then someone else will. You’re paying for it. It is the process of open source software that matters.
That’s not the way that most companies operate. They don’t troll the newsgroups looking for patches. Most of them go to the original vendors where they purchased their hardware/software.
Linux is still based very much on free software. It is the wider process of that open source development that matters, not individuals or end-users looking at the source code. You can choose who will provide your support, and if you ask your support company to do something they jump to it without telling you that you need to buy and install several pieces of meaningless software that you see in all those Windows magazines.
And I can tell you from experience that companies aren’t going to hire fly-by-night companies to support them. They go with bigger vendors such as IBM and HP because they know that they’ll be around for at least the lifespan of their licensing agreement.
What makes you think only HP or IBM will provide support? (Classic one-size-fits-all thinking) Large companies will probably need what they provide, but not others.
See above. Few companies are going to trust your mythical journeyman support guys with mission-critical issues.
The problem with Microsoft and their partners is that something always leads onto something else. As a small business you don’t want to pay for Exchange but you want a basic POP/SMTP server. Microsoft’s answer “Oh, but you’ll need Exchange eventually.” Microsoft software doesn’t do something that should be obvious? “Buy Certified Partner services.” Anti-virus software (buy that), back-up solutions (buy that)…. The list goes on, and a lot of SMEs will know what I’m talking about here.
Wow, I’m so surprised that upgrading to new products would incur new dependencies. IBM and HP would never do that. /SARCASM
At least with a large contract, such as those with IBM, when you ask them to do something they are round doing it. You can call it FUD if you like, but it isn’t.
More FUD. What you’re saying just isn’t true. With a large contract, MS is going to kiss your ass and send out more MCS consultants and SEs than you can count.
On the server side it has already happened, no matter how much Microsoft pays IDC to make Windows look better buy insisting on talking about market share in terms of revenue
. Since Windows licenses are more expensive, and Microsoft can add other server software in, this results in a greater market share for Windows.
You forgot to mention what everybody else already recognizes: The cost of licenses is only a small portion of the overall total cost of ownership. When you compare Linux and Windows head-to-head, Linux TCO comes out the loser.
LOL!! This is Windows we’re talking about here? Here’s a clue; that’s certainly how it should work, but there’s a crucial difference. A hammer doesn’t walk off somewhere or make decisions to do things by itself. The reason why people cling on to Windows, or sign large support contracts is because they don’t trust their tools
.
Wow, I wonder why people sign support agreements with Red Hat. Maybe they really trust their tools but didn’t get around to reading your posting, which equates support contracts with not trusting tools. /SARCASM
You think SMEs, or even large companies, don’t complain about the cost of licenses? Yes they do, but in many cases they’re locked into it or don’t know any better. That is slowly changing, which is really starting to p*** a lot of worried people off.
You must be an IBM salesman. That’s a classic IBM ploy: Harp on the cost of licenses — and then hit the customer with a host of stealth costs for “support”. Ever hear how IBM’s efforts are going in Munich? Answer: big dollar cost overruns, which IBM is floating in order to avoid admitting that Munich’s adoption of open source was a total loser. Here’s the url for the uninformed ( http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Feb/gee20040217023885.htm ).
And you keep yours, but your comment above is literally dripping with worry. If my comment was delusional then why reply to it in the way that you have?
Because I don’t care for FUD-sowing con artists.
Yer it really hurts that many, many, many companies – large and small – turn to Linux to get reliable computing, particularly on the server side.
Nah. Linux is now getting some serious competition from .NET Server 2003. Not surprisingly, .NET Server kicked Linux’s ass in performance ( http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9333 ). Somehow, Linux advocates never seem to mention this fact whenever they demagogue Windows. They just attack the messenger, as if that somehow makes it okay to have sh*tty performance.
I don’t know. Maybe all those multi-billion financial companies, companies like Daimler-Chrysler and the guys at Google all wear pocket protectors and can’t get a date to save their lives. Somehow I doubt it.
I’ve seen some of them. Talk about revenge of the nerds. Geezus. Thank God for Asian and Russian mail order brides; otherwise, these guys would have to marry vinyl blow-up dolls.
“Ever tried running RedHat 5.2 rpms in Redhat 7
or anything similar?
Yeah, I know, we also have the source. I don’t care
about the source.”
There are also compatibility libraries, that could help you in case you do not have the source code. This is possible as Linux is far better at handling different dynamic library versions than most versions of windows.
And if you have the source, it is usally not as difficult as it sounds to recompile. Redhat source code is packaged with automatic compile and install scripts that usually works on a very wide range of Red Hat versions. So even an average sysadmin would be able to do it.
“All Microsoft did was keep a lot of customers who were considering doing “something”, from doing anything. It will hurt their own sales to some degree, as the update path for many was none other than a newer version of Windows.”
Not only will it hurt their sales as people will delay their upgrades. As time goes by the alternatives will grow even better. Perhaps to the extent that the only upgrade path availabe is no longer windows alone.
Give Linux two or three more years and you will see somethign that is just as streamlined and easy to use as what Microsoft can offer at that time.
The whole attitude in the Linux community have changed. A couple of years ago you was not a real man if you couldn’t do everything in “vi”. Today usability is the word a la mode. In a very short time desktop environments like Gnome have evolved from totally useless to very good. Many features that will ship with Longhorn will appear on Linux long before we see them in Longhorn.
“Oh, puh-lease. And you think that IBM and HP are cheap by comparison?!? Get real. You either don’t know what you’re talking about — or you’re deliberately sowing FUD.”
You are right there is no such thing as a free lunch.
But the price of that lunch tends to be higher if there is only one restaurant in town.
As the Linux source code is free so it is very hard for a Linux support company to overcharge their customers. If they do, they may find that new restaurants will open and take their business.
Microsoft on the other hand, with their closed source model, have much more control over who can sell advanced support for windows.
Will people please with the “hobby OS” title for Linux.
I mean when multi BILLION dollar companies like Yahoo, Google and Amazon use 95% Linux I think the “hobby OS” title is long gone.
People should just face the facts that like with GM, Walmart and other big companies, just because you are the biggest doesn’t mean you are the best at what you do. They might be the best at making money and pushing products but I am still waiting to see one product that MS has made 100% in house.
Anyway it’s just a matter of time. The fact that we spend days talking about it shows me that Linux is moving up and making it’s way!
That’s not the way that most companies operate.
That is the way most companies operate. Most do not get their support directly from a large vendor like HP or IBM, although larger companies do.
They don’t troll the newsgroups looking for patches. Most of them go to the original vendors where they purchased their hardware/software.
Yer, so what? I could do that if I want, but I don’t have to, do I. That’s what support is for. Durrr…Hello McFly! Anyone home?
And I can tell you from experience that companies aren’t going to hire fly-by-night companies to support them. They go with bigger vendors such as IBM and HP because they know that they’ll be around for at least the lifespan of their licensing agreement.
What, you mean like Microsoft Certified Partners? How do you think the millions of companies around the world get their support? It’s not from HP or IBM – it is from local companies. Look in your local Yellow Pages or business phone book for IT companies. What the hell do you think they’re providing? Goodness me.
See above. Few companies are going to trust your mythical journeyman support guys with mission-critical issues.
It’s the same with every industry, and the risks are the same – maybe a bit higher – of getting cowboys in. Funnily enough, they always get you to buy Windows. No one should be trusting Microsoft Certified Partners with their businesses.
Wow, I’m so surprised that upgrading to new products would incur new dependencies.
Why do they incur those dependencies? Are they necessary, and why aren’t these and security costs factored into those oh so famous TCO studies?
More FUD. What you’re saying just isn’t true. With a large contract, MS is going to kiss your ass and send out more MCS consultants and SEs than you can count.
Yes, along with all the other incurred costs above.
You forgot to mention what everybody else already recognizes: The cost of licenses is only a small portion of the overall total cost of ownership. When you compare Linux and Windows head-to-head, Linux TCO comes out the loser.
Microsoft has been funding these studies for years – they aren’t working, in case you hadn’t noticed. Licensing fees do matter to people, especially SMEs. If you’re spending several hundred thousand on licenses, then that’s how much you’re spending – regardless of overall costs. Some costs are more expendable than others, which is where licenses come into the firing line. And factor in all of the above additional costs and security please will you? They are never included in these ‘TCO studies’ – whatever TCO happens to mean this week.
Doesn’t answer my original point though, does it?
On the server side it has already happened, no matter how much Microsoft pays IDC to make Windows look better buy insisting on talking about market share in terms of revenue
.
Wow, I wonder why people sign support agreements with Red Hat. Maybe they really trust their tools but didn’t get around to reading your posting, which equates support contracts with not trusting tools.
Perhaps they’re used to a Windows world. Perhaps they just want to get things done rather than waiting for their Windows set up to fall over, or get infested with the next virus. Who knows?
You must be an IBM salesman. That’s a classic IBM ploy: Harp on the cost of licenses — and then hit the customer with a host of stealth costs for “support”.
Microsoft strategy: Harp on about the initial up-front costs of others, and then create an entire cottage industry of somewhat less than useful software and support services around Windows. Net result? A tonne of additional costs that are never factored into those TCO studies.
Here’s the url for the uninformed ( http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Feb/gee20040217023885.htm ).
Yer, love the quality of those articles – especially the one underneath. All that this really comes up with is re-training costs – I wouldn’t exactly call that trouble.
Anyway, I’d be surprised if they didn’t have some trouble pulling themselves away from proprietary file formats, software and other things tied to Windows. What Munich gets out of it in the real long-term is another matter.
Because I don’t care for FUD-sowing con artists.
So says you.
Not surprisingly, .NET Server kicked Linux’s ass in performance ( http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9333 ). Somehow, Linux advocates never seem to mention this fact whenever they demagogue Windows.
It isn’t .Net Server – it is Windows 2003
. You really don’t know much, do you? You can’t just pull one article out of thin air and start using it as the fountain of all knowledge. The real world doesn’t work like that 
.
http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
Compare and contrast some of these ‘studies’. The Microsoft-funded ones – well they don’t amount to much, do they?
I’ve seen some of them. Talk about revenge of the nerds. Geezus. Thank God for Asian and Russian mail order brides; otherwise, these guys would have to marry vinyl blow-up dolls.
I think that about sums you up really – doesn’t it
?