Ian Semmel wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote...
>> B Gruff on Thursday
>>> responsiblegunowner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sumner Lemon, IDG News Service, Singapore Bureau
>>>>
>>>> Adoption of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Vista operating system will
>>>> happen at a faster pace than any previous operating system release, a
>>>> software analyst predicted last week.
>>>>
>>>> Up to 15 percent of PC users will move to Vista within the first year
>>>> that the operating system is available, said David Mitchell, the
>>>> software practice leader at Ovum Ltd. "That would make it the
>>>> fastest-moving operating system ever," he said.
>>>>
>>>> By comparison, between 12 to 14 percent of users switched to Windows XP
>>>> during the first year of its release, Mitchell said.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/061127vista/index.html
>>>>
>>>> That has got planted story written all over it.
>>>
>>> So let me see....
>>>
>>> If there are about 900,000,000 PCs in the world.....
>>> ... and if annual sales are about 150,000,000?
>>> .... and if (through various business practices) say nearly all
>>> of those ship with an MS OS
>>> .... and the choice of MS OS is Vista or Vista.....
>>> .... then 15% seems a very realistic figure?
>>>
>>> I notice that it says "adoption" rather than "change to".
>>> I'd be really interested to see figures for how many people actually go
>>> out and *buy* Vista, rather than a PC *with* Vista....
>>
>> That article, just like the one in The Reg, refers to a _SINGLE_ study
>> from the Ovum group, _whoever_ they are and _whatever_ their reputation
>> is (never heard of them before). Compare that with the reputation of
>> Forrester, for example.
>
> OK, I want to see the credentials of every commentator that you quote in
> your tedious posts propagandizing linux. No more obscure blogs from
> nobodies.
People who already have an operating system will less likely want to upgrade
unless they see a need to. I hung on to Windows 98 as long as possible,
until some applications, particularly games would not run on Windows 98.
People will not want to upgrade their hardware until they see a need for it.
PC's are relatively expensive and it is an additional expense they would
rather not deal with until they have sufficiently "amortised" their old
one.
The operating system is not a means to an end. Most are interested only in
accessing and running their applications. The OS provides the means for
this. If XP allows this, why upgrade?
To run Windows XP Home Ed, I had to upgrade the motherboard, processor,
memory, hard disk. I also had to upgrade the case from AT to ATX, which
also meant a new power supply. Granted though in this case/power supply
upgrade would not be required.
Since XP required more hard disk resources, I had to use the entire HD. Use
of 7.5 GB on my 15 GB dual partition Win98/SuSE 6.4 was insufficient for XP
along with the beefer applications. Linux was perfectly happy with my old
hardware.
--
HPT
|
|
