I basically went from Win'95 to Win XP (bypassing the child steps). Believe XP was the first o/s to impose a hardware upgrade so I started using XP on a new computer. Not sure if I was a year one of two user. As o/s go, XP has improved over the years and is stable.
Unfortunately advances in hardware has allowed (some call it introduced a need for a better, more powerful, more blaw-blaw-blaw) o/s to emerge (Vista / Windows 7). All products get replaced or become obsolete (right?).
Change is supposed to be good, thus preventing boredom from settling in(?). Like two sides to a coin, there are those who are thrilled to leave XP behind and those like me how see no need to change for the sake of change.
Back in the late 80's, early 90's, when forums started (remember the bbsing days of old), where people typed online as I'm doing here, but using dial-up modems of 1200 or 2400 bps. What a thrill to upgrade to the 56k unit - till a wise guy asked "how fast or how many words can you type ....."?
Now, IMHO, the home user who simply accesses the Internet from time to time, does NOT require the change for the sake of change o/s with better bells and whistles. Many have not scratched the surface with what they have (XP wise).
Might also be that some don't like learning or adapting to something new. True, but then why replace something when there is nothing wrong with it. These are my five cents worth, Mindblower!
"For the needy, not the greedy"
Good points indeed MB. The question, as I see it, is pretty much a which came first the chicken or the egg scenario. Does computer technology advance because of the demands imposed by newer, more sophisticated operating systems or do the newer, more sophisticated operating systems emerge to take advantage of advances in the technology??
My take on it is that the latter applies, electronics technology in general has advanced so rapidly in the past 5 years or so it is mind boggling and computer technology is no exception. Touch screen operation is now a reality, a computer in a pen involving virtual just about everything is around the corner...the 'next generation' love this stuff. Don't forget too, that simpler machines running less demanding operating systems remain available for those with minimalistic requirements....in fact, the burgeoning market for e-machines and netbooks has played a significant role in the revamping of Vista into Windows 7.
Yes, Vista was a mistake..M$ failed to take into account that substantial market share which did not want nor require extra this and that but, IMO, the release of Windows 7 will go a long way toward redressing the error....something for everyone.
I love this topic, it is a real enigma because, I believe, it will be viewed by different people (especially different generations) in a completely different light. I guess in the end MB, one has to surrender to progress...at least with the emergence of netbooks, etc and the release of Windows 7 there will be choices.
Good subject-thanks mate,
cheers...JIM
When it comes to my gadgets, I tend to lean more towards the shiny and new. I just upgraded and replaced my Media Center for that reason. (Oooo...shiny is heard in my house quite frequently).
For everything else in my life, it's more a matter of "meh". I drive old cars, I wear old clothes, I use old products. Why replace what isn't broken? (and in the case of my cars, they are cheaper to fix than to replace).
I can't think of anytime I was ever prompted to upgrade my computer because a new OS came out. In fact, many times the upgrade was because of hardware changes. I wanted more RAM, I wanted the bigger processor, I want the newer video card, but my old MB doesn't support that card, etc, etc.
Now, however, I'm finding my usage of computers has changed significantly. Rather than use computers for everything, I'm splitting off into dedicated devices. One PC to run my Media Center, one PC for surfing the web, one PC for streaming music, one PC for mobile (I still use a Handspring VIsor, not quite a PC). One device for phone calls. I don't want the all in one device, because as soon as you get one, you find it only does one thing ok, the rest mediocre. Whereas dedicated devices do the one thing they do quite well.
Wow, that's a tangent.
I know many many many [b:2llu94nu][i:2llu94nu][u:2llu94nu]many[/u:2llu94nu][/i:2llu94nu][/b:2llu94nu] people who run into any snag with their computer and their first response is to chuck it in and buy a new one. "After all, mine's obsolete."
I've talked many people out of buying new PCs when the only reason they want a new one is that it doesn't run as fast as it used to. That's an easy enough fix (many people didn't know you could even reload an existing computer to factory defaults!). More RAM makes all the difference for some people.
When buzz begins to build around an OS, many end users don't know what all the buzz is about. It's Windows. They use Windows. What's one version got that another doesn't? Who cares, it's Windows, it works.
OK, I hope I made sense.
--zig
Jim Hillier
Richard Pedersen
David Hartsock
Carol Bratt
dandl
Jason Shuffield
Jim Canfield
Terry Hollett
Stuart Berg
John Durso
1 Guest(s)