I remember when XP came out, after trying it a bit, I had sworn to stick with Windows 2000 for like ever.
Isn't that the basic rule of any major new release? But with 2000 to XP, I could hardly tell the difference between the two operating systems, except for the UI changes, which I disable anyway on XP. To this day, I still see very little difference when I use a machine with 2000 versus XP. I never used XP until I bought a laptop that came with it installed already, about a year and a half ago. I still have a PC running 2000, it does just fine.
So the question is, if Vista is a similarly uninteresting upgrade, what incentive is there to buy it, along with it's inherent new-product risks and annoyances (per the article mentioned here)? There seem to be very few compelling reasons to upgrade. At least in the case of Win98 to 2000, we had much better memory protection and stability. That was a major improvement. But for XP to Vista, and even still from 2000, I see little incentive for anyone (and especially risk-averse corporate customers) to upgrade as long as software support continues.
What a nice business model microsoft enjoys... anytime they need a few billion dollars, just stop developing patches for one of your legacy operating systems...
Slashdot Mirror
Doh! Of course. Rolling my eyes, at myself...
There are websites that manage sensitive information that pass usernames & passwords in the actual URL, and you think Google's irresponsible?
I remember when XP came out, after trying it a bit, I had sworn to stick with Windows 2000 for like ever.
Isn't that the basic rule of any major new release? But with 2000 to XP, I could hardly tell the difference between the two operating systems, except for the UI changes, which I disable anyway on XP. To this day, I still see very little difference when I use a machine with 2000 versus XP. I never used XP until I bought a laptop that came with it installed already, about a year and a half ago. I still have a PC running 2000, it does just fine.
So the question is, if Vista is a similarly uninteresting upgrade, what incentive is there to buy it, along with it's inherent new-product risks and annoyances (per the article mentioned here)? There seem to be very few compelling reasons to upgrade. At least in the case of Win98 to 2000, we had much better memory protection and stability. That was a major improvement. But for XP to Vista, and even still from 2000, I see little incentive for anyone (and especially risk-averse corporate customers) to upgrade as long as software support continues.
What a nice business model microsoft enjoys... anytime they need a few billion dollars, just stop developing patches for one of your legacy operating systems...