When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they usually seem to split into a
large group that works on the next OS and a slightly smaller one that updates
security and compatibility issues and things for their old OS.

But people don't just use an OS simply for security only. We use
applications daily for education or business, like Office, but we also enjoy
relaxing sometimes by just playing around with things like Movie Maker or
using Microsoft's other more "leisurely" applications.



But these applications aren't updated like the security is. Yes, we do enjoy
better security, but we would also like updates that give us more features
for these apps. (ie. new transitions for Movie Maker, better features in
Paint, etc.) So what I'm saying is that maybe Microsoft shouldn't focus so
much on making their new OS better, but more on making their OLD OS better.
All of these security updates really don't give us any new things to do on XP
or Vista, it just gives us a sense of security (which we can't even see the
difference, since it works behind the scenes). Anyone agree?

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

Well, whenever Microsoft adds too many features to their Windows-integrated
applications, then third-party software makers will complain and at the end
Microsoft gets punished by regulators. :-(


"Casey K." <Casey K.@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:098294C0-E9E6-4DA6-92E3-2E886932A3CC@microsoft.com...
> When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they usually seem to split into a
> large group that works on the next OS and a slightly smaller one that
> updates
> security and compatibility issues and things for their old OS.
>
> But people don't just use an OS simply for security only. We use
> applications daily for education or business, like Office, but we also
> enjoy
> relaxing sometimes by just playing around with things like Movie Maker or
> using Microsoft's other more "leisurely" applications.
>
> But these applications aren't updated like the security is. Yes, we do
> enjoy
> better security, but we would also like updates that give us more features
> for these apps. (ie. new transitions for Movie Maker, better features in
> Paint, etc.) So what I'm saying is that maybe Microsoft shouldn't focus so
> much on making their new OS better, but more on making their OLD OS
> better.
> All of these security updates really don't give us any new things to do on
> XP
> or Vista, it just gives us a sense of security (which we can't even see
> the
> difference, since it works behind the scenes). Anyone agree?
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
> this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

The only way for this to happen and still be viable for Microsoft is to
charge for non-security related updates. Looking at it another way, MS can't
support an infrastructure without revenues and if their primary focus is
simply an ongoing process of updating of an existing OS, they can't make any
money.

Having said that, there might be a way for your suggestion to work, but I'm
not a programmer so what I suggest may not be feasible from a programming
standpoint

Here goes...Microsoft can simply charge for updates not related to security.

For instance, Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Defender,
etc. could all be "for purchase" add-ons. Any cosmetic updates could be
released and sold as a package similar to say, Windowblinds. They could call
the program: Windows A La Carte. Then you'd only need one OS core and allow
customers to have the ability to selectively build their own custom OS. You
could have server modules, home entertainment modules, office productivity
modules, etc.

This may or may not entail MS scrapping the Windows project as it is today
and code a new OS from scratch that allows for the aforementioned (and also
core level) change capabilities, as well as allow MS a more modular OS
platform for future development. Again, I'm not a programmer so I don't know
the possibilities. I do however know that MS cannot maintain viablity
without some sort of revenue stream. In fact, for the same reasons we hate
MS -- they have too much $$$ and control -- are the same reasons we love
them -- free add-ons, copius updates and ubiquity.

fwiw...
--
RJ

"Casey K." <Casey K.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:098294C0-E9E6-4DA6-92E3-2E886932A3CC@microsoft.com...
> When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they usually seem to split into a
> large group that works on the next OS and a slightly smaller one that
> updates
> security and compatibility issues and things for their old OS.
>
> But people don't just use an OS simply for security only. We use
> applications daily for education or business, like Office, but we also
> enjoy
> relaxing sometimes by just playing around with things like Movie Maker or
> using Microsoft's other more "leisurely" applications.
>
> But these applications aren't updated like the security is. Yes, we do
> enjoy
> better security, but we would also like updates that give us more features
> for these apps. (ie. new transitions for Movie Maker, better features in
> Paint, etc.) So what I'm saying is that maybe Microsoft shouldn't focus so
> much on making their new OS better, but more on making their OLD OS
> better.
> All of these security updates really don't give us any new things to do on
> XP
> or Vista, it just gives us a sense of security (which we can't even see
> the
> difference, since it works behind the scenes). Anyone agree?
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
> this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

Years ago, it used to be that service packs didn't include new or changed
features but only included security patches. In fact, at one time, that was
a published policy of Microsoft's. With the need to respond to both legally
mandated changes in the OS and business partnerships with media content
providers, service packs have become the equivalent of mini-releases.

Even so, to make unnecessary changes in a service pack or a patch to give a
feature to one group that another group didn't want in the first place would
create a lot of problems and a lot of anger. Add-ins or new functionality
are best left to things like power toys, downloads, or, even better, to
third-party applications not part of the operating system itself.


Dale



"Casey K." <Casey K.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:098294C0-E9E6-4DA6-92E3-2E886932A3CC@microsoft.com...
> When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they usually seem to split into a
> large group that works on the next OS and a slightly smaller one that
> updates
> security and compatibility issues and things for their old OS.
>
> But people don't just use an OS simply for security only. We use
> applications daily for education or business, like Office, but we also
> enjoy
> relaxing sometimes by just playing around with things like Movie Maker or
> using Microsoft's other more "leisurely" applications.
>
> But these applications aren't updated like the security is. Yes, we do
> enjoy
> better security, but we would also like updates that give us more features
> for these apps. (ie. new transitions for Movie Maker, better features in
> Paint, etc.) So what I'm saying is that maybe Microsoft shouldn't focus so
> much on making their new OS better, but more on making their OLD OS
> better.
> All of these security updates really don't give us any new things to do on
> XP
> or Vista, it just gives us a sense of security (which we can't even see
> the
> difference, since it works behind the scenes). Anyone agree?
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
> this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

There are no free add-ons. They do charge for Windows Media Player, Windows
Movie Maker, Windows Defender, etc. You pay for every bit of that when you
purchase the OS.

You are right that they could separate all those things from the OS - and I
wish they would. There would be much more room for competitive products if
they did. Every Windows user in the world - less a small percentage of EU
customers who opt for the N version - has Windows Media Player and those
other programs. That's a tough market to sell into and that makes funding
for really good competitive projects hard to come by.

Dale


"R. J. Salvi" <rjsalvi@ambianceacoustics.com> wrote in message
news:eK7tPTHSHHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The only way for this to happen and still be viable for Microsoft is to
> charge for non-security related updates. Looking at it another way, MS
> can't support an infrastructure without revenues and if their primary
> focus is simply an ongoing process of updating of an existing OS, they
> can't make any money.
>
> Having said that, there might be a way for your suggestion to work, but
> I'm not a programmer so what I suggest may not be feasible from a
> programming standpoint
>
> Here goes...Microsoft can simply charge for updates not related to
> security.
>
> For instance, Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Defender,
> etc. could all be "for purchase" add-ons. Any cosmetic updates could be
> released and sold as a package similar to say, Windowblinds. They could
> call the program: Windows A La Carte. Then you'd only need one OS core and
> allow customers to have the ability to selectively build their own custom
> OS. You could have server modules, home entertainment modules, office
> productivity modules, etc.
>
> This may or may not entail MS scrapping the Windows project as it is today
> and code a new OS from scratch that allows for the aforementioned (and
> also core level) change capabilities, as well as allow MS a more modular
> OS platform for future development. Again, I'm not a programmer so I don't
> know the possibilities. I do however know that MS cannot maintain viablity
> without some sort of revenue stream. In fact, for the same reasons we hate
> MS -- they have too much $$$ and control -- are the same reasons we love
> them -- free add-ons, copius updates and ubiquity.
>
> fwiw...
> --
> RJ
>
> "Casey K." <Casey K.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:098294C0-E9E6-4DA6-92E3-2E886932A3CC@microsoft.com...
>> When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they usually seem to split into a
>> large group that works on the next OS and a slightly smaller one that
>> updates
>> security and compatibility issues and things for their old OS.
>>
>> But people don't just use an OS simply for security only. We use
>> applications daily for education or business, like Office, but we also
>> enjoy
>> relaxing sometimes by just playing around with things like Movie Maker or
>> using Microsoft's other more "leisurely" applications.
>>
>> But these applications aren't updated like the security is. Yes, we do
>> enjoy
>> better security, but we would also like updates that give us more
>> features
>> for these apps. (ie. new transitions for Movie Maker, better features in
>> Paint, etc.) So what I'm saying is that maybe Microsoft shouldn't focus
>> so
>> much on making their new OS better, but more on making their OLD OS
>> better.
>> All of these security updates really don't give us any new things to do
>> on XP
>> or Vista, it just gives us a sense of security (which we can't even see
>> the
>> difference, since it works behind the scenes). Anyone agree?
>>
>> ----------------
>> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the
>> "I
>> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
>> this
>> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>> then
>> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>>
>> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general
>
>

Wow, what a great idea...is this Carey Frisch in disguise??? Perhaps I'm
missing something, but I find it hard to believe that there's a money
shortage at MS.


"R. J. Salvi" <rjsalvi@ambianceacoustics.com> wrote in message

> Here goes...Microsoft can simply charge for updates not related to
> security.

INLINE:

"Casey K." <Casey K.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:098294C0-E9E6-4DA6-92E3-2E886932A3CC@microsoft.com...
> When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they usually seem to split into a
> large group that works on the next OS and a slightly smaller one that
> updates
> security and compatibility issues and things for their old OS.


Hm hm


> But people don't just use an OS simply for security only. We use
> applications daily for education or business, like Office, but we also
> enjoy
> relaxing sometimes by just playing around with things like Movie Maker or
> using Microsoft's other more "leisurely" applications.


Yup


> But these applications aren't updated like the security is. Yes, we do
> enjoy
> better security, but we would also like updates that give us more features
> for these apps. (ie. new transitions for Movie Maker, better features in
> Paint, etc.) So what I'm saying is that maybe Microsoft shouldn't focus so
> much on making their new OS better, but more on making their OLD OS
> better.
> All of these security updates really don't give us any new things to do on
> XP
> or Vista, it just gives us a sense of security (which we can't even see
> the
> difference, since it works behind the scenes). Anyone agree?


Agreed. It would be nice if Miscrosoft actually continued to improve on XP.
In a way they are, as there is supposed to be a Service Pack Three for
Windows XP sometime soon [2008]. It will be more than just bug fixes as,
it's rumoured, they will be throwing in .NET 3.0 and some other things:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ntil_2007.html

The article says 2007, but it might even be 1st Q 2008 before it is
available.

Anyway, more to what you were saying. Sure they could add more functionality
to the OS. As it is though, Windows is an *operating system* upon which
*other* software runs. That means you can write your own software to run on
Windows and have that software do whatever you want.

I figure what is important is that Microsoft make available the APIs [and
well document them] so that "the rest of us" can program stuff and take
advantage of the OS's capabilities.

Saucy Lemon

Sorry guys,

but Microsoft has updated much more than the security. They've integrated
the graphics GPU and networking into Vista so well and gave the developers
such good tools to exploit this integration that in the next 5 years you will
be amazed at what your PC will be doing. And this you're getting from a C /
Real-time and UNIX programmer and not a fan-boy.

Also, as far a apps go, to try & protect themselves from lazy and greedy
incompetants (Real Netwolrks, IBM, Apple, Oracle, etc..) they have released
the different levels of Vista. Hence I buy Vista Ultimate because that allows
be to avoid buying an inferior DVD player and other inferior products that
would wind up costing me much more money anyway.

Apple, Netscape, Real, and all you other clown companies: I know exactly
what's available, if I don't buy from you it's because your greed and
incompetence is obvious.



"Casey K." wrote:

> When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they usually seem to split into a
> large group that works on the next OS and a slightly smaller one that updates
> security and compatibility issues and things for their old OS.
>
> But people don't just use an OS simply for security only. We use
> applications daily for education or business, like Office, but we also enjoy
> relaxing sometimes by just playing around with things like Movie Maker or
> using Microsoft's other more "leisurely" applications.
>
> But these applications aren't updated like the security is. Yes, we do enjoy
> better security, but we would also like updates that give us more features
> for these apps. (ie. new transitions for Movie Maker, better features in
> Paint, etc.) So what I'm saying is that maybe Microsoft shouldn't focus so
> much on making their new OS better, but more on making their OLD OS better.
> All of these security updates really don't give us any new things to do on XP
> or Vista, it just gives us a sense of security (which we can't even see the
> difference, since it works behind the scenes). Anyone agree?
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

I appreciate the comments, both the for and against ones.

In response to an earlier post, I think that Microsoft could charge for
extras in their apps and make money off of it and I'd be happy, but I also
agree that they have a bit of a dominance in the market.

What I didn't mention before was about other OS's. Let's look at Apple, for
example.

Apple's got many applications built in, like iLife. Now, I know that a Mac
is not as much "business" as Windows is, but they still update their apps
frequently, and always are bringing something new to the table with the apps.
GarageBand, for instance, is a good example of what's been said: they have
upgrades for it, but they do cost extra. When you look at how Microsoft
updates and how Apple updates, Microsoft seems strictly "behind the scenes",
meaning security and things we just don't notice too much of. Apple updates
the way I think Microsoft should, by really beefing up their apps over time.

And while Microsoft is likely making their next new big OS, think about
this: What's wrong with the one we have? Why not just update XP to have an
option to make Aero incorporated?

"Casey K." <CaseyK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:64F5B54B-583D-462C-A725-2014131252AE@microsoft.com...
>I appreciate the comments, both the for and against ones.
>
> In response to an earlier post, I think that Microsoft could charge for
> extras in their apps and make money off of it and I'd be happy, but I also
> agree that they have a bit of a dominance in the market.
>
> What I didn't mention before was about other OS's. Let's look at Apple,
> for
> example.
>
> Apple's got many applications built in, like iLife. Now, I know that a Mac
> is not as much "business" as Windows is, but they still update their apps
> frequently, and always are bringing something new to the table with the
> apps.
> GarageBand, for instance, is a good example of what's been said: they have
> upgrades for it, but they do cost extra. When you look at how Microsoft
> updates and how Apple updates, Microsoft seems strictly "behind the
> scenes",
> meaning security and things we just don't notice too much of. Apple
> updates
> the way I think Microsoft should, by really beefing up their apps over
> time.
>
> And while Microsoft is likely making their next new big OS, think about
> this: What's wrong with the one we have? Why not just update XP to have an
> option to make Aero incorporated?

Easy answer:

Apple OSX: $129.00
Vista Ultimate: $399.00

Which sale would you rather make?