XP SP3: Pardon My Cynicism...

I guess in my ever-increasing age, I'm becoming more and more of a cynic.

Its with that admittedly cynical eye that I state that I don't trust the upcoming XP Service Pack 3.

It was barely a month ago that MS was widely bashed in the mainstream press for a recent "update" to Office that effectively disabled access to versions of files created in previous versions of Office. After a public hue and cry, against what was widely perceived as a Microsoft mechanim to "force" users to upgrade to the next iteration of their cash cow, another "fix" was issued to reverse the change.

And now, here comes XP Service Pack 3.

Billed as primariliy a rollup of fixes and patches introduced since the release of the heralded XP Service Pack 2, one online testing site reports that XP SP3 results in increased application peformance of as much as 10%. Sounds great, doesn't it? For those of us who have found Vista to be a clunky, even lumbering levathian of an operating system, and opted to continue reliance on MS aging XP operating system, it becomes even more curious.

With Vista's corporate adoption rates staggering along at a comparative snail's pace, Microsoft has had to don a brave face regarding its rollout success. Some OEM's, most notably Dell, bucked Microsoft's dictum regarding XP's imminent death, opting to continue offering XP-based systems beyond Microsoft's stated XP dead-date. And Microsoft, finally, pushed back that same dead-date, acknowledging as much as it ever does publicly what the rest of the world already knew - that Vista wasn't ready for prime time.

MS can't afford for Vista to fail. And it is clear that the #1 obstacle to Vista's success isn't the techie-crowd's Linux, it's none other than Windows XP itself. The Gartner Group itself identifies XP as Vista's biggest and baddest competitor, a fact that shows itself to be no small irony in Redmond's OS development history.

All this goes to make all the more curious the timing and apparent benefit of XP Service Pack 3. Why would Microsoft, with a well-known loathing for competition, which bets the company on operating systems just as Boeing bets itself on airframes, do anything to make XP yet more attractive to just about everyone? With the conventional wisdom holding that there exists not one compelling feature to mandate Vista migration, an update to its predecessor would seem to make the case for Vista migration even less compelling.

Why then? Why would Microsoft do this?

If we know that Microsoft tried to push users to its later Office incarnation by disabling access to older versions in the form of an "update," what would prevent the same mentality from embedding some sort of all-but poison pill in SP3 that, at some point, turns XP into some unusable clunker; that can't be reversed; that gets explained away by the folks at Redmond as a "security patch," or perhaps merely a hack to the activation system, leaving literally millions of desktops without an operating system - unless they upgrade to Vista.

That many sites are reporting performance enhancements in SP3 is all the more interesting. Microsoft certainly knows the degree to which SP3 might impact performance, but they also know that numerous media outlets will trumpet those findings in their independent tests, making the boost seem like a serendipitous benefit of the SP3 rollup, giving every XP user in the world every reason to install - and install Microsoft's own "self destruct" switch in so doing.

Okay, okay, maybe I'm paranoid. But Microsoft is the one who has taught me to think this way.

And the presence of some peculiar "sabot" in XP's innards in the form of a service pack applied to the guts of Vista's biggest competitor seems like an all too convenient opportunity for the application of one of the great Trojan Horses in the PC era.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. But MS has taught me to be skeptical of, well, everything MS.

We'll see.

-David

 

LOL. Did you hear the one about the alligators in the sewers? Wait, oh I know, that one about the pyramids being built by aliens...or was it the predators?

 

uhmmm























What?

 

I wouldn't be that worried about it. If something is up with this update, I think the backlash would be pretty bad for MS. Besides, I'm sure we'd hear about any problems with it on here. I'm probably not going to even get it unless everyone on here raves about it. SP2 has been running great. Also, doesn't the new MS Office allow you to convert your old word docs to the new format?

 

On a related note, Honda just announced that all owners of pre-2000 Honda Civics have to bring there car to the dealership to have the engines removed, forcing owners to buy the newer model.

 

Semi-crippling the OS would be too much bad press, even for Microsoft. Imagine all the businesses that would be affected and look how quickly they turned around file type support. With XP Pro still having an extensive support period in front of it I think you can put your fears to rest. I hope, anyway.

 

Vista taught me to be cautious about Microsoft "upgrades", but I doubt they'd do something that disasterous. Especially considering how many people run XP right now. The backlash would be pretty monsterous, and people with problems wouldn't want to solve it by paying Microsoft any more money.

On the other hand, I'm not going to rush to any updates. XP SP1 served me fine through 2007 and XP SP2 is serving me fine now. Office 2007 also seems just fine without a service pack (though an especially symbol-laden .doc file I made in it didn't display correctly in Office 2003; might've been an email error though). Of course whenever I'm most concerned about compatibility I go with .rtf.

New --> Old or Old --> New, both work. I just keep everything in the old format (or .rtf) so it'll work on other computers - I use Office 2000/2003 and used to use 97 (Mac) too much for a new format the old ones don't recognize.

 

This isn't being cynical, this is being paranoid.

 

You can call it whatever you want.

Microsoft gets yelled at for not patching securty bugs fast enough. Microsoft gets yelled at for putting out too many patches. Microsoft gets yelled at for bad compatibility and stability. Microsoft gets yelled at for existing.

 

Hard as it may seem to believe, this isn't a "hate Microsoft" tirade. I've been working with MS operating system products since back in the days of DOS, since Windows was a freebie they gave out with a Microsoft Mouse, and was playing with NT 3.51 when everyone else was playing Windows 95. I've played with Linux, VMS, and others I've just plain forgotten. In the end, MS simultaneously deserves, and doesn't deserve some of the stuff that's thrown at it.

In this case, however, whatever epithets may come my way later, I stand by my original post. Like I said, maybe I'm nuts, maybe I'm an idiot, that's fine, but if you're all honest with yourself, you know in your heart of hearts that what I suggest is not out of the realm of possibility. Heck, MS took on the feds, and while the lost the battle, they didn't exactly lose the war. And their recent $45B bid for Yahoo tells me they're more than a little nervous about their own future.

-David

 

I don't buy into the hype on XP SP3. From everything I read, there will be no new features, and it will basically be a collection of already released updates. If that's the case, how is there a 10% performance increase? Doubtful.

In any case, people are beginning to see the benefits of Vista. Plus SP1 will be a major improvement over RTM.

Conspiracy theories can be fun, but they are cooked up by the imaginations of people outside the company. If you want to know what is in SP3 for XP, MS will tell you (when it is released)...thus, no mystery.

 

It might be true, or it might be not. That is exactly why I never do any major upgrades before it has been out for a while and its flaw/benefits confirmed.

 

This wasn't made up. Check the results posted here.

Benefits? I'm still waiting for them. What are they, again? I hear some Vista fans talking about these benefits, then I go back to stories like the one from August when Lenovo dumped Vista for use on its systems during the upcoming Olympics, citing it as "too unstable..." No Vista for Lenovo Olympics.

On what page of the release notes did MS tell everyone that their access to older versions of Office files would be disabled? I know its hard not to sound like a Microsoft basher, and I really am not, but to suggest that MS has always been completely forthcoming in the contents of its "updates" to be either astonishingly naive or grossly disingenuous.

The point is that, for Microsoft, these are "desperate times." Vista *can't* fail. If MS follows its path regarding prior competitors, it will have to do something drastic with XP eventually. What that means, in reality, remains to be seen.

-David

 

I think the OP wrote well. Kudos for that

 

SP3 is not really any faster. For the length of time the RC has been publically available for it, there are a very small number of sites claiming a speed increase.

As far as the conspiracry theories go, XP will be dead when MS stops patching it OR stops releasing new Direct X and IE versions for it. MS is not going to go and break the OS, however they will make darn sure that a lot of newer stuff does not work on it. Some people held out with Windows 2000 for a very long time and eventually had to break down and get a newer OS or suffer limited usability.

 

from wikipedia, paranoia is exemplified by "insignificant people who believe for instance that shadowy agencies are operating against them."

Of course, it is possible that a shadowy agency IS ACTUALLY acting against you, just ask Gordan Freeman.

The truth of the matter is that microsoft cant really do much damage to you as an individual by releasing sp3 and it sucking, or whatever. You absolutely need to back up your data. Then it really doesn't matter if windows starts sucking and you need to learn how to use linux, because your mp3 collection can come with you.

also, while its POSSIBLE that sp3 will have malicious evil sabotage destruction effects, its more likely that your hard drive will die, or your "non-malicious" sp2 install will start sucking due to badware etc, or, over time, windows devs will overpromise and underdeliver (vista)

and here you are paranoid about sp3, specifically. some fights aren't worth fighting?

in short, microsoft MIGHT creep into your window and attack you in the night, but your hard drive has a 100% chance of failing. back up your data and you don't have to worry about it.

 

lol.....tha real sick

 

Thanks, but I've been using Linux since 2000. Been there, done that.

If MS opts to put some sort of indirect impairment into the OS w/SP3, how would backing up my data protect the potentially hundreds of dollars of investment in software that I could no longer access, some of which may have already been activated in that system and thus are either no longer installable (evein with the media) or can only be after hassling with who-knows-how-many layers of tech support from their respective vendors?

I know, that's a spin off the deep end. My whole point in this is to tread lightly, perhaps moreso than with any other MS update, in the XP SP3 world - particularly in light of how the marketplace is evolving, and Microsoft's dominance in the technical and market space is no longer a fait accompli as it once was. Put a different way, had MS done a better job of creating a new operating system with truly compelling new features, not merely eye candy, they might not be in the position of having to defend Vista as publicly as they have, and potentially be in a position to move people agressively to their new OS platform.

Heck, this situation I've described for Microsoft isn't something I've cooked up. I know one IT department at a fairly large organization that has deferred any consideration of Vista deployment for at least another year. I suspect they're hardly unique.

There's another interesting take on MS current market situation with Vista here, from someone who is very much a MS advocate, but at a minimum concedes that MS has "lied" about its success with Vista..

-David

 

Given that Microsoft's biggest competition is themselves, I think they're doing just fine in the market. Everyone will stop using XP once Microsoft stops supporting it, whether they go to Vista or whatever, most likely, it's going to be a Microsoft OS.

 

even in the *extreme*- if sp3 is malicious and cripples features found in windows sp2, if you have backed up your data, you could do a clean installation of windows, and return to sp2.

this requires your data being secured.

this is one example of how backing up your data can keep you out of trouble.

if you bought software that doesn't come with an installation key and only allows one installation and then somehow locks itself out of your reach, that is your fault for buying that software. seriously.

otherwise, try to limit the vicegrip windows and microsoft have on your by backing up your data.

 

Sort of like someone I knew in grade school.

 

Lithius, I certainly respect your point here, and if this were, oh, five years ago, I would probably agree with you, and this post wouldn't have been written. But not even Microsoft believes they are inevitable anymore, or they wouldn't have just offered $45B for Yahoo.

The point here is that the desktop is no longer the goal; it is a decidedly decentralized market of devices into which the PC has inserted itself as a prominent, but not exclusive, role player. In fact, that thin Interent applicance that was predicted by Elllison (IIRC) back in the day may end up proving to be more accurate in hindsight than we expected. Perhaps the iPhones and BlackBerry's of the world are simply specialized realizations of that device. The point is that MS is at the heart of neither of those spaces. In MS eyes, that's revenue and relevance simultaneously passing them by.

That's why Vista *must* succeeed, or its successor (Windows 7?) will be the fastest desktop OS release in MS history. The difference between now and five years ago (give or take a year) is that no one is itching for a Microsoft desktop OS upgrade. There are no lines forming at the local SW shop waiting to be the first ones in line. Until and unless MS becomes that relevant again, OS updates are no longer compelling unless MS does something to make them so. Microsoft's cash cows are Office and their OS's, and until MS has that new foothold outside the desktop, forcing users down the Yellow Brick Upgrade Road will be their only way to remain relevant.

-David

 

With something that worked (and continues to work) so well for your computer, people are hesitant to switch for no (really) good reason. That's not a knock on MS, it's a compliment. MS will not allow Vista to completely fail. XP will be phased out, just like every other OS they put out. Whether Windows 7 will be here by that time remains to be seen.

Microsoft still has a stronghold in the business world with Windows Server and Exchange to go along with XP. I don't know if Vista Business will take over for XP Pro, but eventually businesses will have to migrate...as painful as that is for most. Plus, there's always the console gaming market.

I'm not going to go into the "benefits of Vista" discussion. That went on for a few years before SP1. If someone sees no benefit to switching, that's fine, but it will not stop MS from moving on. A couple years from now "Windows 7/Vienna/whatever they decide to call it" will be released, and Vista will be phased out. XP's support period was a special case, and it is likely that OS's will begin to cycle like presidents (in the US).

 

Lol Dude

If microsoft did that, Intelligent IT professionals would roll their systems back to before the updates occured, and microsoft would just loose BILLIONS of dollors and likely collaps..

Thanks for being Mr Paranoid and putting that intricate puzzle together but maybe, just maybe, microsoft is realizing its mistake in thrusting an unstable OS on the entire world, and in an attempt to remedy it, they're offering a SP3 that was likely in the works already and just got side-barred for vista..

Come on! have some faith!

 

Aliens built the pyramids! Whoa. Suddenly, everything is starting to make sense.

 

Really? Because companies usually purchase other companies when their at their height. I don't think Google bought Youtube because they were worried about failing, nor did Activision merge with Blizzard for that reason. Companies merge, or buyout others to further their profits, not necessarily to save themselves from doom.

 

Well, it would not be the first company to make their products fail in order to sell more of their stuff. (Hint: do you have a light bulb, somewhere?).
So it is not as far fetched as it may seem.

It could not hurt any user savvy enough to image their OS partition, though. Unlike light bulbs, software can be backed up and a theoretically irreversible degradation of XP would only hurt user with one partition for OS and data and no way to restore a previously functioning version of the OS.
A partition image would not create activation problems, too.

My fear is that SP3 won't hurt XP on purpose but will try to make it better in the eyes of Microsoft. And this means it will be made more like Vista.
And IMO that is not good.

That's the reason I always disable automatic updates for all my software.
I tend to fix only what's broken (and I deem repairable).

 

This is an interesting post, but you have to take into consideration that SP3 is a Choice. The users get to chose whether or not he/she wish to install SP3, if SP3 really is something that is going to sabotage XP; word is going to spread, and people will stop installing SP3, and start bashing Microsoft. Let along that if Microsoft made SP3 a mandatory upgrade, some cr*cker some where will be able to find a way around it. Just like WGA, when it was first introduced, MS claim that it will stop/reduce large windows from pirates. But not even a month after WGA was released, people found ways to bypass it. Therefore, I believe SP3 isn't going to be an issue anytime soon. If MS really want people to switch to Vista, they should focus on improving it to match XP, and not spending time hurting XP to make Vista look better.

 

And thus we highlight one reason why monopolies are bad.

If Honda, or any company, could do that and get away with it, then they most certainly will.

 

Man, I sure do wish that MY COMPANY was my own biggest competitor. Imagine owning both Hertz AND Avis. Not too shabby if you ask me.
2nd thought: No one actuallt upgrades to VISTA from XP. rthere is no reason to. So, If people go to say Staples, and either buy a new computer with either XP or VISTA on it, MS makes $$$. If they go to the software isle and BUY either one, MS makes $$$. I guess that is a bad example since Staples will only sell VISTA computers, but you get my drift. Newegg and such will sell XP as long as humanly possible, maybe longer.

Either way, my point is MS has really nothing to complain about and can afford to "extend" the dates on XP ad infinitum.

Dave

 

i think microsoft is using my webcam to subliminally message me. what should i do about this? duct tape?

 

That won't work. They use X-Rays. That's why so many people have cancer.

Lead my friend. Use lead. Ingest some too. It helps block rays if they get inside you.

 

You have a link?

 

Some dismiss you off the bat (as batty I suppose), I do not. It isn't just Micro$oft now. Nuance support has a setup to squeeze money from customer
too. 9.95/per service call even when the software doesn't work out of the box. Corel somehow creates a nag screen for those who opt to stay with the old JASC Paintshop Pro software (failed to update registry is the error report), back to MS, Internet Explorer goes into safe mode (disabled functions) if you opt to make another browser your default, and Computer Associates internet security if you decide to discontinue use, the CA folder with certain files I suspect are spyware REFUSE to be removed no matter what you do with the uninstall option, file system, delete key, or registry. The only way to get rid of it is reformat your drive.
I think Micro$oft started all this mess. So what you say about SP3 wouldn't surprise one bit. I'm determined to gradually (because heavily invested in Windows based software) move either to Apple or preferrably, LINUX. I feel my computer isn't really mine anymore.

 

Comparison of those acquisitions is comparing apples to oranges. Google's acquisition is a lateral one, expanding their presence in an area in which they already dominate. In what Internet area does Microsoft dominate? In a word, none. They are borrowing from their own long-held company strategy of purchasing what they cannot produce, but are now trying to do so into a space in which they, in reality, hold very little leverage. Most analysts have already stated that the acquisition will likely not impact Google's dominance.

Microsoft has to make this move now, because they obviously recognize the long-term future is not exclusively in the desktop. Technology has evolved right around and past the desktop. The primary pivot they have on which to build this next step, however, is the desktop, in the OS and Office applications suite. The acquisition effort is a tacit admission that their independent development efforts in this area have failed.

That's why I reiterate that, for MS, Vista *must* succeed. And the inevitability of MS isn't nearly what it once was, or Dell's blowback in their continuing to provide XP-based PC's means that some big players in the PC inudstry are starting to see the same thing. They stood toe-to-toe with MS, and won.

Mind you, this isn't to suggest MS is a dying flower. But they are evolving into an organization much more like the lumbering IBM of the pre-Gerstner days, wallowing forward on the air of dependence of their own inevitability just as you surmise. IBM had to reinvent itself, and it did. MS hasn't yet tried to reinvent itself, but they recognize they cannot depend on the desktop forever; however, right now, they realize they have no alternative. As a result, they make a hostile bid for a company that I'm not entirely sure they will know how to use should they acquire it.

I realize some think this is nuts, and there are all manner of perspectives. But it HAS inspired some really great discussion!!

-David

 

The fact that Microsoft can offer such a HUGE amount of money for a company doesn't in anyway show that they're worried about their future. If anything, this move shows the world the Microsoft is still a big player in the game, despite Vista's early on short-comings.

$45 Billion....how many companies can boast that amount of money as an offer to buy something?

 

But seriously...aliens built the pyramids...think about that for a second. Whoa. That's just too deep.

 

So you're saying that Google was a leader in peer to peer video, thus making it's acquisition of YouTube a lateral move? No. I don't think so. That was an expansion move on the behalf of Google, taking in another aspect of the internet and adding it to their repetoire.

Same thing with what Microsoft's trying to do with Yahoo. Yahoo is a leading search engine. MSN is lagging. Microsoft is expanding, trying to build enough to combat Google. This move has nothing do with fearing for survival.

What happens if Vista fails commercially? Another 5% move to Apple and 2% move to Linux, leaving Microsoft with only 80% of the market share. Oh dear, oh dear, what are they going to do.

 

They had shrink rays.

All they had to do was shrink their ships...voila!

 

Of course I did not say that. Google is dominant in the general space of Internet content distribution, be it through search engines, news gathering services, or even its collection of indexed photos. The acquisition of YouTube is a lateral (horizontal) expansion entirely in that same context.

Microsoft's acquisition of Yahoo is an effort to expand vertically into a space in which it is decidedly and demonstrably not dominant, and in fact are barely present. In comparison to Google, MSN is almost laughably irrelevant. As a result, these two acquisitions are not comparable. Given Microsoft's tender offer for Yahoo at a premium, it smacks of a desperation move to force their way into a market they cannot and have not penetrated on their own.

That's a contradiction, Lith. You're not "combatting" someone if you're not "fearing" them as a competitor. Why is Microsoft worried about combatting Google at all? If Microsoft is unilaterally to drive market direction at its own whim, if it is truly perpetually inevitable, it need not conern itself with any competitor. Yet it just sacrificed close to 15% of its own share value to offer a premium price for a 2nd tier Internet search service.

...And what percentage stay on XP? A user staying with XP doesn't generate one penny of revenue for Redmond. What will MS do? They're going to count millions of lost revenue in unpurchased Vista licenses, that's what they're going to do. They didn't write Vista on a whim. Momentum carries agreements to purchase server OS and database software, but the catalyst in that nearly self-perpetuating cycle is the OS. If the momentum of that OS slows, then alll the concepts and ideas that become tied to it grind slowly to a halt as well. That's why MS is looking for a way out, into a space in which it has marginal experience, little success, but one that is already being demonstrated as the broader future of the technical space Microsoft seeks to dominate.

 

Wow, you tend to forget history very fast. Google had as much of a share in the peer video market as Microsoft currently has of the search engine market. Google Video FAILED. So Google bought YouTube. You don't think that the 60 Billion or whatnot wasn't a premium price?

A vertical move for Microsoft would be to start building hardware, not expanding to the internet.

What happens if everyone stays on XP? Microsoft cuts support in a year, forcing everyone to move to Vista or the next big thing. They have enough control over the OS market that they don't have to secretly cripple you with a conspiracy attack. They blatantly stop supporting XP, like they did with 98 and 2000, and everyone moves on. What happens to unpuchased Vista licenses? Microsoft loses $1 on each package of plastic and paper.

And all this is the worst case scenario. This assumes that Vista will become a utter failure.

 

You mean, they would actually point a gun to their customers' head and force them to buy Vista?
Because that is, you taught me, the real meaning of forcing an OS on a customer.

 

Yes. But only your head. See, Microsoft's conspiring against you after all you've said about them. And, oh, the CIA also wants a piece of the action too.

 

You have now clarified how this forcing will work, and yet I am still undecided on what is the real BS. You saying that Microsoft can force a customer to buy Vista or you saying that Microsoft cannot force a customer to buy Vista?

I guess this is due to me having just one personality.

 

I didnt read all the way through, but could the performance increase be due to the inclusion of the dual-core patch that beforehand had to be installed manually?

Cant find the link but if you search for it you should find it

 

I believe you are correct, jimminy.

 

Seeing to it that you can't take a joke, I guess we'll bring back the fact that you think you were forced to purchase a computer with Vista.

When you bought your computer, you had the choice not to purchase one preinstalled with Vista. You could have bought one with XP, or one with Mac OSX, or even one with Linux. But you chose to purchase the one with Vista and *****ed about it for the next millennium.

Twist my words however you want, but you can't get away from the fact that you CHOSE to purchase Vista when you bought your computer. That has nothing to do with this hypothetical, last resort option put forth in this thread. There's a big difference between forcing someone to buy a computer loaded with an operating system, and forcing someone to let go of XP. Even then, you can choose to continue to use XP, as long as all your hardware and software was made prior to Microsoft cutting off support for the OS.

 

Lithius, I never went to business school, but I think your understanding of horizontal/vertical market expansion is lacking.

Google was playing in a sandbox in which it was already a dominant player. Microsoft is NOT dominant in the same space. Repeat NOT. MS has been building hardware for years, but they're not worried about being the core identity of their enterprise. They are trying to buy a presence in a space in which they are not already a player.

Remember when MS used to buy up external operating system tools, and resell or repackage them as they were their own, efffetively pushing those tool vendors out? That's what Google was doing when it bought YouTube.

MS cannot simply shut down the operating system as you so blithely put it, because it would draw the ire of the federales and the antitrust folks. They have to do it in a way that packages itself in plausible deniability.

This debate tends to spiral away from the core of this discussion, which is my contention that Vista *has* to succeed at all costs for Microsoft, because they're not betting their corporate future on how many licenses of Exchange or Sql Server they can sell...they might be able to create a crutch on server licenses, but their bread and butter has to be the desktop, because it's all they have. They also know the market is evolving around and away from it. No, the PC isn't going away, but there are tons of devices coming out shoveling bits around that MS has nothing to do with, and that just won't do. Google isn't handling all those bits, either, but they're in a darned better position to do so than MS, and arguably has more power to raise capital to grab those bits than even the once-indomitable MS.

They've tried to leverage their way into the space occupied by Google because they realize that to remain a dominant player over the next three, five, or even ten years, they have to move away from the traditional desktop OS as their raison d'etre. Paradoxicallly, however, they must do everything they can to perpetuate it until their own internal "dependence" can be broken.

In a way, MS is being hoisted on its own petard.

 

Microsoft can and will shut down support to XP. It is a ridiculous expectation that a company offer lifetime support for a product, unless explicitly stated at the time of purchase. I believe the current time set is 2014, a long time away, but it will end, just like support for 95, 98, and ME.

Is Microsoft in a permanent state of bliss? No. Of course the company needs to try hard to stay competitive in the market, but to view their attempt at acquiring Yahoo as a desperation move is stupid. Microsoft is still very dominant in the electronics market and can live through another OS failure, assuming that it becomes a failure in the first place.

One thing is for sure though, Microsoft doesn't need to conspire against their own customers to maintain their market superiority. Until someone else comes up with an OS that can take more than 10% of the market, Microsoft is well entrenched.

 

We're talking about two different things: stopping support versus allowing it to continue functioning, either by brute force or by what would be seen as akin to a "constructive eviction," where a landlord doesn't give you an eviction notice, he just sets fire around the building so you can't get in.

Why, Lithius, I didn't think companies with as much dominance as MS had to work hard to stay "competitive..."

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. If you want to call it stupid, that's your prerogative. I think any company that is totally confident in its ability to compete - not merely its ability to purchase a presence it cannot acquire on its own - hardly needs to offer the huge premium they've offered for a struggling Internet vendor. Even at a minimum, a smart business effort would have seen MS offer decidedly less for Yahoo, but even at that it persists as a move that is self-evident of the following - they're trying to buy a technical presence they cannot create on their own, and are so eager to do it, they're paying an unrealistic sum for it. And the market is already punishing MS for the move. I think the market is already making its assessment as to the relative business intelligence of the move.

Curiously, what would be the "other" OS failure? Within the deep, dark walls of Microsoft, I believe it already is a failure. It is not reaching the sales and corporate adoption levels you and I will never see published, and every public assertion MS makes about its adoption rate being "ahead" of XP or other previous OS's at a comparable point in its lifecycle is an admission of the failure. You don't have to issue press releases that tell everyone how great you are.

Laughably untrue. One might argue they've been conspiring against their customers for two decades by hacking standards and tying products.

Well-entrenched in what? A desktop-OS-only market? If that's the case, then that statement more than any other you've made demonstrates just how contradictory their attempted acquisition of Yahoo really is. MS doesn't need a Yahoo if it is already and will continue to be dominant in a market that will forever and exclusively be defined by a desktop OS. The point is that the market isn't that simple anymore. MS knows it. But they don't know what to do about it,and their efforts to guess have failed. Next stop? Throw money at Yahoo, and hope they can search through some rubble to find the answer they don't have.

We're starting to go in circles now, so perhaps we've reached the end of the road. I've appreciated the discussion here. Realize some are laughing at the idea, and I'm really not the Microsoft basher I sound like (and have at times been) in this thread. But I also know MS is more worried about its own future than at any time in its past, and Vista's struggles are but one part in how and if Redmond will evolve itself into a company capable of moving in concert with the technology, and corresponding market, it hopes to master - yet seems to be moving even too fast for MS to control. For them, that's the scariest fact of all.

G'day, all.

-David