DFS wrote:
> nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 6:48 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> Dell casts doubts on Vista
> >>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >>> Dell today revealed that it will restore the option to use Windows
> >>> XP on some of its home systems, marking a potentially damaging blow
> >>> to Microsoft's hopes for the newer Windows Vista.
> >>>
> >
> > Of course Microsoft intends to cut off support for XP, by 2008 I've
> > heard, and thus force everyone to upgrade.
>
> How can they force anyone to upgrade? I've been using Excel 2000 for nearly
> six years, and they ended "mainstream" support June 2004 - nearly 3 years
> ago. Why wasn't I forced to upgrade to Excel XP, then Excel 2003, then
> Excel 2007?
>
> Millions and millions still run Win98, and official support for that OS
> ended a while ago. Why wasn't everyone forced to upgrade to Win2K, then XP,
> then Vista?
>
I was referring to the OS, not the apps. The force comes about
because when security and bug fixes are dropped, you become a sitting
duck for malware. This is exactly what has happened with Win98 users
(they didn't upgrade, and now are vulnerable, if not already
compromised). What I meant was that I personally would be forced,
because I won't use an OS that is not supported by bug and security
fixes. Same is true for a lot of other people (eg businesses), but
obviously not everyone.
But even with the apps, MS can force upgrades by including new
features (useful or not) in their newer versions, so that older
versions are no longer useful when exchanging files. I don't have
specifics on when they have done that, but I believe they have.
> (nessuno slinks away like every other cola bozo who can't support their
> weird anti-MS blathering).
>
This is not fair, and I am not blathering.
>
>
>
> > In the meantime, if I
> > understand it right, Dell can't sell new machines with XP on them if
> > Microsoft doesn't sell Dell the licences. So they could cut this off,
> > too, if they wanted to.
>
> I sure hope so. It's their product to do with as they wish. I know you
> Linux goobs think MS should be forced to do as you wish, but the world
> outside cola is a very different place than the alternate reality presented
> here.
>
I've never seen anyone say they couldn't do as they wish. But they
have earned a great deal of ill will because of the way they do it.
>
>
> > OTOH, if customers massively demand XP, even
> > if it merely delays substantial Vista adoption by a year or so, it is
> > not good news for Microsoft.
>
> It's a major black eye for MS, in my book - and they brought it on
> themselves. Too many incompatibilities with existing apps and games and
> hardware, apparently poor upgrade results, and a perception of excessive
> hardware requirements (which is only partly true - it doesn't need a fast
> processor or expensive video card, but I do think 2gb RAM is necessary for a
> good Vista experience. And that's absurd.).
>
>
>
> > The real opportunities for Linux uptake
> > may not be right now so much as a year from now when the pressures to
> > upgrade become stronger.
>
> Any decade now, and Linux will be taking over.
I didn't say take over. But there will be an increase in market share
for alternatives to the Windows Way---not only Linux, but OS/X, Google
apps, etc. And Vista is not looking too good right now. I really
expected it to look better by this point.
|
|
