Commentary

David DeJean
 

Microsoft Shoots Self In Foot (Again, *Yawn*) Over Tool That Migrates Apps To Vista

Explain this one if you can: (a) Microsoft desperately wants to get users to abandon Windows 2000 and spend some new money updating to Windows Vista; (b) Microsoft creates a tool, Easy Transfer, that can migrate data and settings from Windows XP and Win2K PCs to Vista PCs; (c) Microsoft creates a second tool, Easy Transfer Companion, that does even better by migrating installed applications from old PCs to new PCs running Vista -- but (d) it only works if the old PC is running XP. Exactly how does this encourage me to migrate off of Win2K?

Explain this one if you can: (a) Microsoft desperately wants to get users to abandon Windows 2000 and spend some new money updating to Windows Vista; (b) Microsoft creates a tool, Easy Transfer, that can migrate data and settings from Windows XP and Win2K PCs to Vista PCs; (c) Microsoft creates a second tool, Easy Transfer Companion, that does even better by migrating installed applications from old PCs to new PCs running Vista -- but (d) it only works if the old PC is running XP. Exactly how does this encourage me to migrate off of Win2K?There is some real news here. Microsoft promised last October it would provide Easy Transfer Companion "when Vista ships." Apparently it meant the consumer ship date at the end of January, not the corporate ship date in November, because it has rather quietly made the utility available as a download.

I should be congratulating Microsoft for easy Transfer Companion -- after all, it's never been able to migrate an installed app from one Windows PC to another before. (Who'd have thought that would be so hard for the company that created the operating system? But apparently either Microsoft wasn't good enough to make it work, or it saw some financial advantage in depriving us of the convenience.)


More Windows Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

But rather than congratulatory, I'm angry. Now, with money on the table, application migration works -- but not for the people the software company most especially wants to move to Vista? Easy Transfer works for Win2K but Easy Transfer Companion doesn't?

I have to cut Microsoft a little slack here. After all, ever since it cut off official support for Win2K it has enforced a hard and fast "screw the Win2K user" policy -- Office 2007 won't install on a Win2K PC, Internet Explorer won't upgrade to V.7 on a Win2KPC, and so on. With Easy Transfer Companion it's obviously very cleverly strategized itself into what the psychologists call a "double bind:" on the one hand, if it allowed Easy Transfer Companion to work for Win2K users (and I know of no technical reason why it shouldn't -- it's my understanding Win2K and WinXP are basically identical in the way they treat the registry and applications) then it would be violating its give-no-comfort-to-Win2K-users rule. But on the other hand, if it actually wants to migrate Win2K users off the unsupported operating system and get them to pay for Vista, it would have to waive its own rule and support Win2K again, just a little bit.

The decision is pretty clear: the Microsoft bureaucracy chose to be right rather than popular.

(XP users shouldn't expect to get all of the benefits and none of the abuse, by the way -- if you're thinking about transferring your files an apps from an XP machine to a new Vista PC, remember that you have to go through Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage validation for both machines before you can download Easy Transfer Companion.)

We've all worked for companies where we heard the jokes about the "Department of Sales Prevention." Apparently, it's located pretty high up in the org chart at Microsoft.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links