Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Upgrades Microsoft Operating Systems Windows

Microsoft's Attempt To Convert Users From Windows XP Backfires 860

MojoKid writes "Microsoft has been loudly and insistently banging a drum: All support and service for Windows XP and Office 2003 shuts down on April 8. In early February, faced with a slight uptick in users on the decrepit operating system the month before, Microsoft hit on an idea: Why not recruit tech-savvy friends and family to tell old holdouts to get off XP? The response ... was a torrent of abuse from Windows 8 users who aren't exactly thrilled with the operating system. Microsoft has come under serious fire for some significant missteps in this process, including a total lack of actual upgrade options. What Microsoft calls an upgrade involves completely wiping the PC and reinstalling a fresh OS copy on it — or ideally, buying a new device. Microsoft has misjudged how strong its relationship is with consumers and failed to acknowledge its own shortcomings. Not providing an upgrade utility is one example — but so is the general lack of attractive upgrade prices or even the most basic understanding of why users haven't upgraded. Microsoft's right to kill XP is unquestioned, but the company appears to have no insight into why its customers continue to use the OS. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Attempt To Convert Users From Windows XP Backfires

Comments Filter:
  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:26AM (#46407615)

    Not to mention the fact that upgrading from any computer old enough to have come with XP to Windows 8 is highly unlikely. You will almost certainly have to buy new hardware along with that expensive software.

  • XP Works (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:27AM (#46407629)

    People keep using XP because it works just fine.
    There's nothing wrong with it. Why would we change?
    If it aint broken, why fix it?

    Save Windows XP!!

  • Win 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GuitarNeophyte ( 636993 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:28AM (#46407637) Homepage Journal

    Anyone who I have known who wanted to buy a new computer, I have told them to make sure they get windows 7. Those people have been pretty ok. If Microsoft wasn't trying to kill their good product (Win 7) by pushing everyone to Win 8, they'd be fine.

  • by bumba2014 ( 3564161 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:30AM (#46407661)
    it works, why change it.... I'm still using it...
  • Re:Tired... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedy@AAAtpno ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:32AM (#46407687) Homepage

    You may want to take a seat, this may be a bit of a shock to you; this is a website about technology. Perhaps surprisingly, the desktop many of us have to support counts as "technology". Therefore, the company behind the OS on these desktops gets attention. More so when they make as many boneheaded moves as MS has over the past several years.

    For a while there, MS was doing "OK". Windows 7 was decent ( even though they moved shit around on me and broke some functionality that was useful to admins in xp...but I digress ), security was 1000% better than it used to be. They were really picking up steam, especially after vista.

  • Re:Tired... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:34AM (#46407703)

    While it's true that /. has a long history of MS-hating, I'm even more disturbed by the fact that Apple still seems all-too-often to get a free pass around here. Apple has, IMHO, *WAY* surpassed MS in the "evil empire" category. MS, even at it's most arrogant and heavy-handed, never tried to construct a walled garden around its OS's and forbid users from loading 3rd-party software that they didn't approve of. Apple has not only done that, but it's become their trademark.

    There are loads of people on /. who are still blasting MS for putting a fucking their own web browser in their OS back in the 90's. But when Apple not only puts their own web browser in their OS, *BUT FORBIDS INSTALLING ANY OTHER THIRD-PARTY BROWSER*, everyone just shrugs their shoulders and talks about how great a guy Steve Jobs was.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:38AM (#46407751)

    Get rid of metro
    Get rid of apps that take up the entire screen. Don't even tell me I could split the window in half, it pisses me off
    Fix the start button so I can see my programs again
    Restore popular programs that were removed, like video player.

  • by Barryke ( 772876 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:39AM (#46407755) Homepage

    This article is bogus and even /. MS bashing unworthy. A proper upgrade is a OS reinstall, not a wizard that performs some half-ass "lets copy files and hope it works". Windows XP was never intended to boast a upgrade system like this. Applications can do anything on the whole computer and there is nothing to properly wall these in, except for using a sandboxed OS like Android or iOS. But these are, ofcourse, not as productive.

    Quit the whining, just buy the new hardware and accept that the world doesnt stop spinning because you got stuck in 1994.

  • Simple really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Revek ( 133289 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:42AM (#46407811) Homepage

    Most People don't want to relearn anything. They know how to do this or do that and its different the second you move up to the next version after windows xp and office 2003. Microsoft has to accept its customer base doesn't want to have to learn how to drive a new operating system or application every few years.

  • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:42AM (#46407813) Homepage

    Microsoft's list of reasons to upgrade include:

    * Designed with the new mobile lifestyle in mind
    * More background designs and colors
    * Enhanced Bing search
    * A beautifully redesigned store.
    * Deep cloud integration with OneDrive.

    With reasons like that I can't imagine why XP users aren't rushing out to drop $500 on a new PC, $100 on a new monitor and another $300 on a new printer/scanner then replacing/reinstalling all their software and trying to get everything working like it already was...

  • Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Connie_Lingus ( 317691 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:47AM (#46407877) Homepage


    i HIGHLY doubt this...the people i know running XP on old hardware are totally clueless about linux...all they really use the machines for is browsing, email, and perhaps an application here n there.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:47AM (#46407879)

    To be fair, if your computer does what you want it to do and does it well, then there is no reason to upgrade. I get so sick of seeing tech savvy folks act like it's better to have the latest just for the hell of it. It's not, I have downgraded several times because previous generation software and/or hardware works better for the reason I'm utilizing it. If you have to do the main thing you use a computer for in "compatibility mode" then what was the point of the money you spend to upgrade? Just to throw away.

  • by SJHillman ( 1966756 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:52AM (#46407949)

    How easy is it to upgrade from OS X 10.1 (Puma) to OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)?
    Puma came out a month before XP and Mountain Lion came out three months before Windows 8.

    How easy is it to upgrade from Debian 3 (Woody) to Debian 7 (Wheezy)?

    How easy is it to upgrade from Fedora... no, wait, Fedora 1 didn't come out until two years after XP. So let's try Red Hat Linux 7.2 (Enigma) to Fedora 18 (Spherical Cow)?

    People forget that Windows XP is really goddamn old.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @10:53AM (#46407963)

    So Grandma is supposed to backup her files, wipe the computer, install Windows 7 or later, reinstall her software, restore her files, and enable XP compatibility mode versus keep things exactly as they are.

    You are a crack smoking monkey.

  • Re:Tired... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @11:01AM (#46408069)

    We're talking about desktop OS, not mobile.

    The walled garden has been a huge success for Apple on the iPhone and iPad. Do you honestly think they're not going to eventually bring it to their Mac desktops too (if they even keep making desktops)?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @11:09AM (#46408145)

    Did you read the site you linked to?

    ReactOS 0.3.16 is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

  • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @11:14AM (#46408241)

    I'll go a step further - I prefer Office 2003 to 2010. I've been using the "ribbon" for a few years now, and it still sucks.

  • by jeffb (2.718) ( 1189693 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @11:16AM (#46408261)

    You seem entirely unfamiliar with the concept of "security updates". Even if your computer "does what you want it to do and does it well", you may wake up one morning to find that it's doing what a stranger wants it to do.

  • Re:Simple really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @11:23AM (#46408351)

    Most People don't want to relearn anything.

    As well they shouldn't. Having to relearn something you already know how to do is dead, wasted time. By itself it serves no purpose. Forcing people to relearn things is only justified if it is inextricably tied to making those things better, which, alas, too often it is only in the developer's mind.

  • Re:Yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot.spad@co@uk> on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @11:23AM (#46408353) Homepage

    XP is over 12 years old, that's one hell of a *free* long term support package. Is there any other OS available that has a 12 year support lifecycle? Ubuntu's LTS releases have a 5 year support cycle, Apple doesn't have a published official policy for OSX but it's about 4 years on average. RHEL comes the closest I can find at between 10 & 13 years depending on the version, but you have to pay for that so it's not directly comparable.

    XP has had a pretty good run of it, all things considered and if Windows 8 wasn't such a PR mess, this "forced" upgrade would probably a lot less contentious.

  • upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @11:44AM (#46408605) Homepage Journal

    I know it's shooting fish in a barrel... with a shotgun... and they're already dead... but:

    Look to OS X on how updates are done right. Why does MS always steal the somewhat-nice parts from Apple and never the really cool ones?

    Upgrade OS on the same machine: Insert disc or download image. Click installer. Wait. Reboot. Done. All your data and configuration is intact, down to the desktop background and even the applications you had running will be open again after the reboot.

    Move to a new machine: Get new computer. Turn on. It asks if you want to copy your stuff over from an old machine, so say yes. Connect (WLAN, cable, whatever). Wait. Done. New machine looks exactly like the old one, including all your applications, data and configuration.

    So, it is technologically possible. Makes you wonder why one of the biggest IT companies on the planet is incapable of doing it this way.

  • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @12:24PM (#46409083)

    Have you tried running them in WINE? A lot of old Windows software works quite well in it.

  • Re:Win 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @01:07PM (#46409671)

    It's the equivalent of saying X model of car is absolutely horrible because you don't like the layout of the dash.

    Why the hell would I buy a car if the dashboard is butt-ugly? The dashboard is the one part of the car that I look at the most. I see it whenever I'm in the driver's seat (or front passenger's seat for that matter). For someone who actually uses the car, the dashboard aesthetics are arguably much more important than the exterior design of the car. You only see the outside of the car when you're walking towards it in the parking lot. Moreover, the dashboard layout is critical to my operation of the car. If it's poorly laid out, that'll affect my usage of the car greatly, and if it isn't laid out well, this can be annoying and even dangerous in heavy traffic.

    So yes, if a car has a terrible dash layout, then that model of car IS absolutely horrible, and I'm not going to buy it.

Logic is the chastity belt of the mind!