Microsoft Product Lifecycles
You can fight Vista at home, but even if you cling to your Windows 2000 computer tightly, odds are you'll be forced to get with the times at work. In fact, very few people can say they use Windows 2000 at work anymore. Released in March of 2000, it was no longer being sold by march of 2004-- and by March of 2005 you could not even buy a new computer with it installed anymore.
Many see it as evil, but it is easy to see that things must move forward. For applications to take advantage of the new things Windows XP and Vista do, developers need to have some assurance that they will not have to maintain very different code to support older systems. This results in a fear to move forward, so Microsoft pushes people along with its published lifecycle:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
Sure it makes them money too; that is the nature of it. Windows XP is set to begin its death next January (2008) and will no longer be available on new systems by January of 2009.
Also out here is a projected list of service packs. According to it, we should see a SP3 for Windows XP in the first half of 2008. But what of Vista SP1? No mention of it. However, there is quite a lot of industry speculation that we should see a SP1 later this year about the time of Windows Server 2008. However there have been recent reports that release could be as soon as mid August and that some beta versions of the service packs have been leaked. More on that as it becomes available.
Operating systems are a big concern when it comes to updates and support coverage, but even applications cannot be supported forever. Microsoft publishes product lifecycles for support of all of its application service packs online.
Email This!
Digg it!
Sphere it!
Del.icio.us
Reddit!
Newsvine
Comments
If Microsoft did not depend on the large infusions of cash that forced upgrades generate, the company could concentrate on perfecting the operating system, much the way the original Volkswagen beetle was made better without major changes for years, or the Jaguar XKE was bettered throughout its lifecycle [many I know would still give up a treasured part of their anatomy for the cahnce to own an XKE].
Only when a major change in the hardware architecture takes place should the OS change [quad cores, for instance - or an update to the original architecture with its limits - like a new system, all PCI express, no serial or parallel ports, more than 16 real IRQs, maybe a place for the Power6 processor!]
Posted by: marc klink | August 3, 2007 3:22 AM
I respectfully disagree with you Marc. I feel that particularly when it comes to technology the envelope should always be pushed. There are no doubt many out there that will be happy with their old OS on their old computer, but when they buy a new computer-- why not an improved OS that takes advantage of that power. Vista does this well by enhancing the experience for the user by taking advantage of power that would otherwise go untapped by most non-gamers.
Posted by: Bob Kelly | August 3, 2007 8:19 AM
I think Bob needs a little objectivity. Microsoft languishes in the postion of monopoly holder. Its attitude is "I'm fabulous, love me or hate me".
Computing is business, and there's no real good-will there, despite the highly trained help-desk personnel.
Perhaps we could liken it to the dragon Smaug,in Tolkien's "the Hobbit": sitting on the treasure and eating anyone unfortunate enough to come near.
Graham
Posted by: graham philip | August 9, 2007 7:55 PM
Point taken Graham. Microsoft can be difficult to defend at times, but while there are plenty of people feeding the fire of bad press I want to point out the logic and the good where it may be easily overlooked. I mean only to point out here that there is logic behind the need for products to have a defined end of life. Computing (business or not) must move forward and not sacrifice advancement for the sake of backward compatibility.
Posted by: Bob Kelly | August 13, 2007 11:40 AM