On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:25:26 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:01:19 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>| There are no upgrades or features to the OS that are sufficiently
>>| compelling to make upgrading a necessity, some which were earlier
>>| promised, allowed for sufficient reason for an upgrade to be considered,
>>| but these have been removed one by one over the course of Vista's
>>| prolonged patchy road of development, and now Vista appears little more
>>| than an ill-performing version of XP with a glorified interface.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34268
>>
>> COLA has argued (anticipated/foresaw) this for at least a year. To quote the
>> bottom line again:
>>
>> "Ill-performing version of XP with a glorified interface."
>
> There's a quote by some famous guy that was repeated and made famous by
> some other chap. You might have heard of him, being as you're from the
> same area...
>
> "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it"
>
> Here's a few examples of history that you're repeating:
>
> Windows XP not worth the upgrade:
> http://news.com.com/2009-1001-274436.html
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcpcp.html
>
> Windows 2000 worth the pain (almost)
> http://www.networkcomputing.com/1104/1104f1.html
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200002/ai_ziff23121
>
> Windows ME: Not worth the trouble
> http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_31/b3692042.htm
>
> Why you don't need Windows 98
> http://www.will-harris.com/wire/html/win98.html
>
> In other words. Critics have said that each successive Microsoft OS hasn't
> been "worth it", but yet when the next upgrade comes along then the
> previous version was the best version and the next version isn't worth it.
>
> This will, by all indications, be exactly the same. More people like
> yourself braying about how the upgrade isn't worth it. Then there willb e
> lots of reports over the next year about how adoption has been "slow" or
> "not meeting expectations" and then suddenly, everywhere you look, there it
> is.
This is very observant of you. Since the release of Windows 95, there has
been little reason to upgrade to the latest version of Windows.
What happens is that home users buy a new computer with the latest version
of Windows, after the old one fails or simply gets too slow because
Windows has been self-destructing ever since it was first turned on. Home
users generally have little choice in the matter, but to get the latest
version of Windows foisted on them.
Corporate users are more or less forced to upgrade, by their Software
Assurance contract. Most companies generally wait as long as possible
before upgrading, because they know that they will also be forced to buy a
bunch of new hardware to replace the low end machines in the system.
Many companies that do not have software assurance contracts are still
using the version of Windows that came on the computers when they were
purchased. The OS is then regularly reinstalled to keep the machines
running. I'm sure that Microsoft know this, which is why OEM's no longer
bundle the media.
In the end, each new release of Windows takes years before it becomes
dominant. This is because each new version of Windows offers very little
real value over the previous version. For all the hype, Vista is unlikely
to be any different.
Ian
|
|
