Late Adopters Prefer the Tried and True

smooth wombat writes "There is a fairly significant portion of the population which does not go out and grab the newest OS, gadget, web browser or any other technology related product. Why? It's not because they're luddites but rather, they are comfortable with what they know. Take the case of John Uribe, a 56-year old real estate agent who still uses AOL dial-up and only recently switched to Firefox after being prodded for weeks by an AOL message telling him that on March 1st, AOL would no longer support Netscape. Why did it take him so long to stop using Netscape and make the switch? From the article: 'It worked for me, so I stuck with it. Until there is really some reason to totally abandon it, I won't.'"

Comments

Obligatory first comment. I win!

[JacquesDemien]

Obligatory first comment. I win!

Re:Obligatory first comment. I win!

[Zaatxe]

No, you didn't. Yours is the fouth post! ;-)

Link to th eactual patent

[sm62704]

This might allow some intelligent discussion about the actual topic, rather than a flamefest about whether or not patents should exists.

Since INL I have no idea WTF the link is saying. So I'll just STFU for now.

-mcgrew

Re:Link to th eactual patent... OOPS

[sm62704]

OOPS! Sorry, wrong story. Please mod my original comment offtopic, thx

Re:Difference in attitudes

[elwinc]

Absolutely! When I look at the difference between windows 2000 (which offers real improvements over win98) and windows vista, I see alot of change purely for the sake of change. Win XP is kind of a big bug fix on Win2K. I would have preferred it if they had just fixed Win2K, but I'll accept a bug fix. Vista isn't even a bug fix - just change for the sake of change. I'm avoiding it and all the people I advise are avoiding it too.

Re:Goatse

[Anonymous Coward]

We do love it. Please post more.

Re:What?!

[sm62704]

People like this man should not breed and be removed from the gene pool to ensure the survival of our species.

You don't understand evolution very well, do you? My friend Linda's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but she's had fourteen kids and so far only one of then has died. I only have two (that I know of) and they're both thriving, but Linda beats me in the evolution game 13-2.

It's not about intelligence, it's about procreation. You only have to stay alive long anough to breed. Didn't TFA say the guy was 56? If he hasn't bred yet he's not likely to, and if he has then killing him won't change anything.

So by your own logic you should put a bullet in your own head to ensure the survival of the species. You're probably still a virgin, considering your apparent personality.

BTW, most mental retardation isn't hereditary but is usually caused by brain injury. But go ahead and kill yourself anyway and rid the species of the "hatefulness" gene.

Look at politics

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want evidence of people sticking to the "tried and true" approach, take a look at recent American, British and Australian election results. Voters will not vote out the party in power unless something is going to change (or already has) anyway, meaning a minimum of 2 terms for a government is almost a given these days. And if you ask anyone why they voted for the current government, they will most likely tell you "everything is ok as it is" or "I'm not sure what that other party will be like", or recite a scare tactic line from the current government playing on people's fear of the unknown.

For example:

• American presidents are limited to 2 terms, so when they have to go only then will the voters vote out their party too.
• The Liberal party was in power in Australia for a long time until John Howard announced he would not serve out his next term.
• In the UK, Labour will only be voted out in the next election because Tony Blair has now retired.

Ok I'm generalising a little bit here and there are obviously other influences too, but you get the picture.