Microsoft Selling Against Microsoft

I've mentioned a number of times before how the lack of sales velocity for Vista could hurt Microsoft, whose business is held up by the twin pillars of Windows and Office. According to a link on Slashdot.org, Microsoft has tried advising IT managers how to make a case for upgrading from XP to Vista.

Given the claims that Microsoft made when XP first came out (disclosure - I happily use XP), about the robust security, selling on the strength of improved security - no, really, we mean it this time - is probably not the most convincing argument that the company could make. If it didn't deliver with XP, when it claimed that it did, why would anyone believe that it would this time? Wouldn't there be another argument for a future version that the previous versions were inadequate and there was no good way to patch them to get up to snuff? And the argument of having to upgrade "to match the capabilities of their competitors" is the same tired hog wash that the software industry (including analysts) have been peddling for years. Software doesn't make the product or the company. At best it's a tool. At worst, an expensive excuse. According to this PC World article, Microsoft is also claiming that Vista is cheaper than XP when run on mobile PCs (read as laptops) by some $606 less a year:

Peculiarly, the study actually was based on XP usage and extrapolations based on Vista capabilities because there was not a substantial base of Vista clients in use yet when the study was done early in 2007. Now, the installed base of Vista is 60 million PCs, Microsoft said.

I wonder if Microsoft actually included the upgrade costs - including new hardware - as so many of the early users had already paid for the upgrades under a site license agreement, and so would not have shelled out additional money. Whatever the case, it's not a good sign when company has to use fear, uncertainty, and doubt - the great software FUD - against its own products because so few people want the new one.