Showdown @ the ZDNet Corral

I got up a bit later than normal today, and saw this article, with responses from a few fanboys on both sides, and then a reply from another contributor on ZDNet. It seems that there is dissention in the ranks, as not all of them are willing to fall in line with the wishes of the Microsoft Masters.

I couldn’t help but chuckle when I read Mary Jo Foley’s post this morning about Microsoft and its PC partners allowing Windows 7 users to downgrade all the way back to Windows XP, bypassing Windows Vista if they’d like.

(Regular readers know what’s coming next, right?)

Apple would never do anything like that. When Apple releases a new version of OS X, excitement builds around it. Why? Because upgrades to an operating system are supposed to be just that - upgrades. They’re supposed to be better than the predecessor. Why on Earth would customers want version 1.0 of a piece of software when version 3.0 is starting to hit the market? Maybe because they’re still freaked out about how much Version 2.0 sucked.

Mary Jo points out that, with Windows 7 looking pretty good under beta conditions, there are bound to be questions as to why Microsoft would allow such a downgrade. Her quick answer: For many businesses, supporting different Windows is a nightmare and they prefer to have everyone working on one (or possibly two) versions. (Read: businesses didn’t buy Vista.)

That’s a nice spin, Redmond - but I’m not buying it. Instead, I see this as more of an insurance policy to reassure buyers that Windows 7 won’t be the nightmare that Windows Vista was. If the release of the new OS turns out to be a big fat flop (again), then users still have a stand-by that works for them. In this case, that’s Windows XP, originally released in 2001.

This came from Sam Diaz, known to actually own a Mac, so it is a little biased, but then I feel the same way. I find it amazing that so many are unwilling to simply acknowledge that Vista was, and is, a stinker, promising much much and delivering little, with Windows 7 thus far looking like more of the same.

The simple fact is, that almost no one ever spoke of downgrade rights until the advent of Vista. Why? Because in all other cases, there was no need. Either Microsoft quickly came out with fixes (think DOS 4.0 to DOS 4.01, Windows for Workgroups 3.1 to Windows for Workgroups 3.11) or there was already a path to betterment (think Windows Me to Windows 2000).

So, always mindful of the masters, Mary Jo Foley came back with -

Sam, Sam, Sam!
I am going to ask you the same question that the Apple fanboys always ask me (except about Microsoft, in my case): Are you on Apple’s payroll??

Come on: It’s not a Redmond spin that some businesses are still running XP and will be for quite a while. It’s the reality. This downgrade rights policy is aimed at business users (that is why it is for volume licensees). It is not meant to be a consumer-focused “anti-Vista-flop” guarantee….

No, of course not. Microsoft, like the hungry wolf, simply picks off the individuals from the herd, getting them to switch, because they know no better, or are mesmerized by smoke and mirrors. Most individuals will be picked off in this way, assuring Microsoft a long span of tasty meals, as it were. Businesses are not so easily moved, both because their forced close inspection reveals the smoke and mirrors aspect, and because many simply cannot swing the large outlay of cash right now. For these customers, the fix for Microsoft will be the removal of Office as compatible with Windows XP. (I’m certain this is in the works as I write this!)

To get the full effect, we continue with Sam’s reply -

No, no Mary Jo, I’m not on Apple’s payroll.  Heck, I would have been happy to get a discount on the iPhone I ended up taking back - but I had to pay full price just like everyone else.

The whole Apple reference was a side note - and I probably should have left it out. This has nothing to do with Apple. This is all about Microsoft.

I mean, c’mon. Let’s be real. Windows XP was released EIGHT YEARS AGO. And everyone seems to be cool with the fact that Microsoft is cool with anyone - even if it is volume licensees - downgrading to an OS that’s EIGHT YEARS OLD.

It’s time to move on already. Windows XP is old. And that fact that MSFT is still talking about it not only illustrates how badly the company botched Vista but also does little to offer any assurances that Windows 7 will be better.

Here’s the good news for me: Maybe I can still get top dollar for an old Windows ME machine that’s sitting out in the garage someplace.

I don’t need to be on Apple’s payroll to sing the praises of the Mac. I only need to use a Windows machine from time to time to remind myself why I use a Mac.

This is what I really fail to see. If anyone simply states that something is not up to snuff, immediately there must be a ‘fix in’ from the competition.  Why can’t those who see a problem be given that freedom, and an acknowledgement that the possibility of their assertions is correct?

The point of all of this rancor is to distract the users from the facts that there are problems, and when answers are needed, Microsoft does not want to give them.

If Windows 7 is so superior, why not address the concerns, and tell why changes were made? Since we have seen that Vista came out with the ‘classic’ (read Windows 95) interface as a possibility, perhaps a reasonable explanation of why 7 cannot have the same is in order. We are not children, with Microsoft acting as a parent , with the ability to say, ‘Because I wanted to!’ – we are paying customers, and should have a reasonable explanation for why something is removed for apparently no reason.

I remember in earlier days, Microsoft would have technology briefings that stated the hows and whys of coming changes. It made people (those who cared) understand what changes were coming, and why the way that things worked were changed.

I see none of that now. In the ‘blogs’ that are available for the development team, I see a lot of’ ‘Wow we changed his because it was really neat’, and ‘You’ll really like the way this works’, but no reasons why we should.

Well, instead of the Eddie Haskell routine (sorry, to the young audience, for the reference to ‘Leave It to Beaver’, but it just fits) which I’m seeing through like a worn hankie, so how about some straight talk, as though I had money in my hand, and Microsoft wants me to part with it. (Because I do, and they do also.)

As for those at ZDNet, why not come clean, and state that a big part of the ad budget comes from Microsoft? We’ll all sleep better that way.

§

whitespace

Order is the shape upon which beauty depends. - Pearl S. Buck