One hundred years ago, things were built to last. Houses were designed to accommodate extended families from one generation to another. Commercial buildings were as much works of art as places of business. Since then, the concept of planned obsolescence was introduced into our economy. The idea that today’s purchases will need to be replaced in a few years is a recent development. Years ago, people bought something with the intention of keeping it. Today, things are bought with the hope it will last long enough to justify the expense. While a sad commentary on society and its values, it’s a fact of life.

It seems no industry has mastered this concept better than the computer industry. Computers sold 10 and 15 years ago still can function, yet we’re forced to regularly replace them. In the mid-1980s, hardware could be purchased with the expectation that if it was reasonably current and powerful, it would last three to five years or more. Today, the hardware cycle is more like 18 months to two years. Even before purchasing the latest and greatest PC, the manufacturer has de-signed its replacement and planned its production.

While taking delivery of a spanking new Pentium III 1.8 gigahertz computer, the next generation is on the drawing board at Intel’s lab to be in-stalled in computers from Dell, Gate-way, Compaq and others. In fact, as I’m writing this, there’s an item in to-day’s newspaper that Intel, the major manufacturer of computer chips, having announced the availability of new ones several months ago, dropped the price on the previous generation of chips.

And that’s only hardware. On the software side, many lawyers are under a mistaken belief that it’s the billing vendor or manufacturer of their case management program that sees a profit by regularly forcing loyal users to up-grade or lose access to technical sup-port. In fact, the company that really mastered the game of “pained” obsolescence is no other than Microsoft. Starting in 1995, Microsoft switched from naming its products by sequential numbers and began naming them for the year they were released. Beginning with Windows 95, it clearly intended to get the marketplace accustomed to annual releases as if we were buying vintage wines. Of course, that plan backfired slightly as there was no Windows 96, 97 or 99. While Micro-soft has back-pedaled by calling its current version Windows XP, it has set our expectation level to anticipate regular upgrades.

Microsoft critics claim the company fixes known problems in the new version, rather than repairing the prior one, as an extra enticement for people to upgrade to the newer product. While one could argue this is merely smart business, Microsoft’s near-monopoly status should allow it more wiggle room so businesses could upgrade on their own timetable rather than the operating system vendor’s. Considering the clout Microsoft exerts on the leading hardware vendors, consumers end up with an environment where they’re forced to buy the latest operating sys-tem when purchasing a computer, resulting in an office with multiple operating systems to support.

Extended phase

When Microsoft introduced Windows XP, it announced that as of June 30, it would no longer allow resellers to offer Windows NT Server 4.0 (Standard and Enterprise editions) or Windows 98 to be installed on new computers. Beginning March 31, 2003, Windows 2000 enters what Microsoft refers to as the “extended phase.” On its website, microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp, it offers a detailed description of its product lifecycles. Complete with charts, Microsoft describes its five-year plan for each product. Talk about planned obsolescence!

From the day a new version is available, the support clock starts ticking. For the first three years a product is on the market, Microsoft allows hardware vendors to install it on new computers, and upgrades can be purchased from computer stores and online. During this mainstream phase, it offers “standard support,” which includes premier or incident support on a fee basis, online support and “hotfix” support. Hotfix is a change Microsoft makes to an installed code for a specific, usually very large, client site.

For the fourth and optionally the fifth year after release, the products are classified in the extended phase, which allows hardware vendors to make limited new installations of the product while support remains the same as the mainstream phase. After four years of general availability, the product is considered in the non-supported phase, which limits the options for installation on new computers and support.

With these life cycles, products al-ready in the non-supported phase include MS DOS (all flavors), Windows 3.X, Windows 95 and Windows NT 3.5. In June 2003, Windows 98 and Windows NT 4.X enter the non-supported phase. These guidelines determine whether consumers can buy a particular operating system from Microsoft or receive phone support, not whether they can continue to use the program. Microsoft already announced the end of support for Windows 2000, although there still are a couple years until new computers won’t have 2000 installed or purchasers won’t have access to telephone support.

Forced upgrades

Beyond its announced plan to discontinue support and prevent hardware vendors from installing older versions on computers for firms that want to keep all its computers on the same operating system, Microsoft has another strategy that forces consumers to up-grade systems regularly. To make up-grades easier, vendors try to add new features and functions while keeping the data structure and design incrementally similar to the previous version. Most vendors also include the tools needed to upgrade from one version to the next.

Several times in the past decade, Microsoft severed ties to previous versions. For example, a few versions back, documents created in one version of Microsoft Word couldn’t be read by the subsequent version. While Microsoft hasn’t forced people to go cold turkey again since then, it hasn’t kept its formats compatible from version to version like other vendors.

Consider as a contrast that the file format of Corel’s WordPerfect has not changed since version 6. Every version from 6 to 10 uses the same file structure, and documents created in version 10 can be opened and worked on in all those earlier versions. Alas, the same is not true of previous versions of Microsoft Word.

The issue of planned obsolescence within the computer industry gets further complicated by the business strategies and financial resources of legal software vendors. These companies have to balance staying compatible with their previous versions so users can easily upgrade from one version to the next with changes imposed by new operating systems and office applications from Microsoft and any other products with which it might have links.

While it wasn’t a major thread in the anti-trust case against Microsoft, there was an episode in the mid-1990s when Microsoft was actively encouraging vendors like WordPerfect, Lotus and IBM to develop versions of their products to run on OS/2. Microsoft even was an investment partner in IBM’s OS/2 operating system. Yet, at the same time, Microsoft was quietly designing its own products for its Windows operating system.
Compatibility Consider the awkward position of legal software vendors, especially the practice management products. By their nature, they link to a large number of other popular programs. Not only do they have to be concerned about upgrades within their own product lines, but they have to remain compatible with a large number of pro-grams that also are being upgraded. Even though they link with one version, a new maintenance release can — and often does — break the link between integrated products. Figuring out who is to blame or which side of the equation has changed can require extensive detective work. Often, small files like DLL files, short for dynamic link libraries, can be changed and suddenly a link that has worked no longer shares information among programs.

New versions often change settings that can impact programs designed to share information with them. Just keeping track of a typical case management program’s partners and their updates must be a full-time position at each of the major vendors.

While it might be tempting to conclude that the safe route is to stay with your current products and hardware for as long as you can, the reality is that more than any other industry, computer hardware and software vendors have figured out a way to keep getting our budget dollars for upgrades.