The Benefits of Being a Late Adopter w/Microsoft Products

[BluffTHIS!]

Well I just read another PC Mag article about how microsoft should be ready to release their new OS, Longhorn by the holidays. I have never bought any of their products when they first came out. I totally skipped Windows 3.0 and only upgraded from DOS when Windows 95 came out. I skipped 98, adopted ME (wished I hadn't) and then only got XP early this year with a new machine after SP2 was released. Same with their office products too - didn't buy them until later releases. So after they have scaled Longhorn way down and missed deadlines to deploy it, they finally will release it by year's end. I plan to just plug along with XP for at least 18 months since I REFUSE TO PAY TO BE A DEFACTO BETA TESTER. All of you who rush to upgrade and encounter all the bugs, security and otherwise that should have been found and fixed during the "official" beta period, wiil effectively be the real beta testers, albeit ones who paid for the privilege instead of the other way around. I wouldn't even get Longhorn if I bought a new machine in the next year. Waiting until later to adopt Microsoft upgrades is definitely +EV IMO since most of the bugs will finally have been found then.

What do the rest of you think?

[MyMindIsGoing]

First of all, it is no longer called Longhorn. Second "I REFUSE TO PAY TO BE A DEFACTO BETA TESTER.", noone is forcing you to use their products at all....

[AncientPC]

If you don't need it, don't get it. The US is saturated with consumeraholics.

In regards to bugs, *shrug*. They're still finding bugs in Win98 / 2k / XP years after their initial release. Maybe you should just to DOS 6.22.

[illunious]

I got 2k pretty early after it was released, and still use it, it actually did some useful stuff compared to 98 or NT. Every time I use XP on someone elses computer I'm amazed at how much it sucks. The default "user friendly" settings are so insanely annoying (also true for every version, but XP seems to have taken it to a new level), probably OK after some tweaking, but I see no reason to upgrade.

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
I got 2k pretty early after it was released, and still use it, it actually did some useful stuff compared to 98 or NT. Every time I use XP on someone elses computer I'm amazed at how much it sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more. I still run 2k too, however I will install 2003 server soon since MS more or less given up on 2k now. 2003 server is the server version of Windows XP and looks like 2000 as deafault. It is very stable and clean, and it runs everyting like it should and does not feel like a server os at all (like NT4 server did). Feels like a natural upgrade.

[stabn]

You did yourself a horrible disservice by getting XP so late. The day it was released it was better than 9x/2k w/ all the patches. Overall your concept made since pre XP.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
I got 2k pretty early after it was released, and still use it, it actually did some useful stuff compared to 98 or NT. Every time I use XP on someone elses computer I'm amazed at how much it sucks. The default "user friendly" settings are so insanely annoying (also true for every version, but XP seems to have taken it to a new level), probably OK after some tweaking, but I see no reason to upgrade.

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes 10 seconds to apply 'windows classic' /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I feel the same way (says the guy still running Windows 98SE).

I am shopping for a new desktop. I want PVR functions, so any comp I buy will likely have Windows Media Center Edition 2005. The 2004 edition was apparently horrible, but the 2005 edition seems to be getting good reviews.

However, I do playing on making sure my computer is appropriate for when I do upgrade the OS.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it is no longer called Longhorn. Second "I REFUSE TO PAY TO BE A DEFACTO BETA TESTER.", noone is forcing you to use their products at all....

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite true. My point is that Microsoft is taking advantage of consumers by releasing products with too high of a bug content, and that the best response is to adopt later when a bigger % of the bugs have been fixed. I also think the reason for this state of affairs is the resources put into monopolistic practices trying to jump into every application category to kill off the competition, when those resources could have been better used to fine tune their core OS and Office products so that they release a better finished product.

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got 2k pretty early after it was released, and still use it, it actually did some useful stuff compared to 98 or NT. Every time I use XP on someone elses computer I'm amazed at how much it sucks. The default "user friendly" settings are so insanely annoying (also true for every version, but XP seems to have taken it to a new level), probably OK after some tweaking, but I see no reason to upgrade.

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes 10 seconds to apply 'windows classic' /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

The skin is only one thing out of dozens that annoy me. It's hard to explain, but every time I sit on someones XP box I run into something that just makes me cringe and think WTF WTF WTF!?!?

Everyone I know that got it early (4 people) were having issues with either drivers or software. Slashdot seemed to have daily news about XP vulnerabilities. These aren't issues anymore, but I can't think of one thing XP offers that would make me want to switch.

[TylerD]

[ QUOTE ]
I got 2k pretty early after it was released, and still use it, it actually did some useful stuff compared to 98 or NT. Every time I use XP on someone elses computer I'm amazed at how much it sucks. The default "user friendly" settings are so insanely annoying (also true for every version, but XP seems to have taken it to a new level), probably OK after some tweaking, but I see no reason to upgrade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its just a matter of taste, I prefer the XP interface.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it is no longer called Longhorn. Second "I REFUSE TO PAY TO BE A DEFACTO BETA TESTER.", noone is forcing you to use their products at all....

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite true. My point is that Microsoft is taking advantage of consumers by releasing products with too high of a bug content, and that the best response is to adopt later when a bigger % of the bugs have been fixed. I also think the reason for this state of affairs is the resources put into monopolistic practices trying to jump into every application category to kill off the competition, when those resources could have been better used to fine tune their core OS and Office products so that they release a better finished product.

[/ QUOTE ]

Http://www.microsoft.com/jobs

Search Criteria:
Job Titles: ALL
Locations: ALL
Job Categories: Software Testing
Products: ALL
Keyword Search:
Results to Show Per Page: 10


Your search criteria found 435 results. (your selected criteria.)

If you like the results, you can save this search as a job agent. The Job Agent tool regularly searches for new Microsoft® career opportunities that match your specific search criteria and can automatically notify you of the results.

Displaying 1-10 of 435

Yes, obviously they have no test resources.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, obviously they have no test resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. But it's the reserve testers, the early adopters, who find a lot of the bugs that their salaried testers don't (not because they couldn't but because the product was released prior to a very thorough testing).

[krimson]

I find that there is almost always a correlation between people who "prefer to stick with old versions of windows" and people who "couldn't reformat a computer and install a fresh OS to save their lives".

[BluffTHIS!]

I would agree that that is often the case. My point is not whether to adopt a newer version but when.

[MyMindIsGoing]

There are people who actually realized that "newer is not always better" and "why do I need all that new crap" so they stick with the old one. They waste both time and money by installing the new one. If you have a car lets say 2003 model and there is a new 2005 model of that same car, do you go and buy it just beacuse it is newer? No. I still run windows 2000 and it works perfect, windows XP is just a bloated version of it. There are NO things in XP I miss in 2000. So why should I install it? Just beacuse everyone else use it? Oh and I use some old versions of some programs beacuse I like them better (like winamp, acdsee and windvd), the new versions are just bloated with crap and made for people who apperently never used a computer. They add nothing new I miss. So what use do I have of them? Newer is not always "better".

[AncientPC]

Multiple users logged in.
Built-in remote desktopping (for Pro at least).

Plus I got a legal copy of WinXP corporate for $5 working for a university. *shrug*

Of course, not everyone needs WinXP nor it's added functions. But like someone else pointed out already, it only takes 10 seconds to switch it over to Windows classic theme.

Also, a clean WinXP install boots up 20 seconds or so on my computer. They've fine tuned the boot up to be quick enough. The OS slows down / gets more bloated from all the programs people install.

[MyMindIsGoing]

"Multiple users logged in."
I am the only user of this computer.

"Built-in remote desktopping (for Pro at least)."
Security problem, would never leave it on.

"Also, a clean WinXP install boots up 20 seconds or so on my computer."
Good for XP, have about same time with my 2000.

"it only takes 10 seconds to switch it over to Windows classic theme"
Yes I know. But it is still XP.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, obviously they have no test resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. But it's the reserve testers, the early adopters, who find a lot of the bugs that their salaried testers don't (not because they couldn't but because the product was released prior to a very thorough testing).

[/ QUOTE ]

How should they impliment this vey thorough testing? What kind of testing do you think they are skipping? Can you give me a test plan on how to test what they are obviously missing?

[BluffTHIS!]

A testing plan would consist of longer testing by like corporate beta-testers who have lots of employees to thoroughly put a product through its paces. And regarding security issues, all they would have to do is post beta copies and invite non-malevolant hackers to hack it, a step that surely would be greeted by those hackers whose principal purpose is showing off the security weakness of MS products. Even if they kept it in-house, the magnitude of past security holes suggests that competent in-house testers who are trained to think like a hacker should be able themselves to find such holes. I want to make clear that I like MS products in general, though I always prefer a non-MS product if it is just as good due to MS' monopolistic practices. And I don't think that beta-testing deficiencies are limited to MS, just that their programs being so widely used makes any such bugs and particularly security holes more serious.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]

A testing plan would consist of longer testing by like corporate beta-testers who have lots of employees to thoroughly put a product through its paces.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically already done through MSDN subscriptions:

[ QUOTE ]

Although Microsoft Corp. has released the first beta of its Windows Vista client operating system -- as well as a test version of its next server operating system -- only corporate users who are members of Microsoft's MSDN development program, TechNet or Windows Vista Technical Beta Program can download the software (see Microsoft releases Windows Vista, IE 7 for XP betas.


[/ QUOTE ]

Url (http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/windows/story/0,10801,103576,00.html?source=x06)

As far as security goes the security push cost them $100 Million:

url2 (http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/07/18/rtr667718.html)

I definitely agree that pre XP Microsoft wasn't making security the priority it should have been. But since then they've definitely shown that they are taking steps to correct that. Whether or not it pays off in longhorn we'll see ~6 months after release i guess.