The news from computer makers: Sales growth is slowing. Pundits have offered plenty of explanations, ranging from a Y2K panic-buying hangover to the idea that many users have computers that are already plenty fast for everything they do.

Let me propose another reason: The increasing pain of upgrading from an old machine to a new one, due largely to Microsoft products whose designers never gave the problem even a first thought. Once upon a time, upgrades were easy. You copied your data and program files from your old PC to the new one and started computing. Not even a reboot was required.

Now, thanks to that revolting Windows development called the Registry, you can move only the data. Every bit of software on the machine has to be reinstalled or upgraded--unless the PC comes with preinstalled versions of your applications. Extra-cost products like Aloha Bob's PC-Relocator can ease migration pains but have significant limitations.

The Web makes things worse than ever. You'll probably have to re-download just about every browser plug-in you need. And thanks to Microsoft's cavalier attitude toward software quality in general and the upgrade process in particular, you still may not be out of the woods.

All this was impressed upon me recently when I swapped an ancient Pentium-90 Win 95 box for a modern 1-gigahertz PIII model running Windows 2000 Pro. With the old unit, I'd been using Outlook Express version 4 for e-mail. The new one came with version 5.5, so I figured I could copy my old e-mail files to the new machine and run the newer version's import function.

Four hours later, I was ready to lob grenades in the general direction of Redmond, Washington. The import process didn't work, and neither did the four different workarounds I found in Microsoft's online "searchable knowledge base"--including one that involved editing the Registry.

I briefly considered giving up on Outlook Express and tried importing my old mailboxes into the detestable Outlook. No go. Apparently Outlook's import function finds only the files already being used by the version of Outlook Express on the machine. If you can't import it into Express, you can't bring it into Outlook.

So under pressure of deadline, I did something I normally try hard to avoid: I brought in heavy artillery unavailable to most users. I called Microsoft's PR firm and demanded to talk to a member of the development team.

Several hours later, the developers admitted defeat. The import function, it turned out, "pointed to an area that doesn't necessarily exist." It would be fixed in a service pack available "in the next couple of months." In the meanwhile I could try downloading a utility developed by a consultant in Chattanooga. Alas, this tool didn't run properly on my machine.

Shortly thereafter, Microsoft finally provided a successful workaround. (For the benefit of fellow sufferers, here's the fix: First, make sure that your old Outlook Express mail files are not marked as read-only. Then create a directory called OE4 with subdirectories called Mail and News. Put your old Outlook Express files in the Mail folder. Then open Outlook Express 5.5 and run the import function.)

With Gatesian chutzpah, Microsoft advertises that Windows 2000 produces significantly fewer blue screens of death than the versions mere home users are supposed to put up with. But I've had three blue-screeners so far. Worse, Windows Explorer won't show me the directory where Outlook Express stores messages. And at this very moment, I'm staring at a taskbar that won't hide itself as I've requested. This happens intermittently, and I haven't found any solutions in Microsoft's knowledge base.

The joke used to be that Microsoft didn't get things right until version 3. Now version 5 products ship with version 1-level quality. The company's obnoxious "let 'em eat service packs" hauteur gives users one more reason not to upgrade. Why donate new fees to its overflowing coffers or spend time fixing its mistakes?

Sponsor Offers and Demos

PC World Magazine