Vista

[ankhor]

Guys, I said that the majority will upgrade, so yes, I’m quite aware that 49% or less won’t upgrade in less than a year. However most businesses will upgrade much later.



You can't compare upgrading to Vista from XP with upgrading from 98/ME to W2k/XP.
An upgrade right now is not as important as switching to an NT based OS was.

I can and I did, wasn`t bothered by the techno mumbojumbo, I had programs
and attachments on my computer, that would need new drivers or just
wouldn`t work with the new upgrade. Why invest more when 98 still worked fine? And alyter it didn`t work fine anymore, so I upgraded.

I know people who kept using 98 because they had old software they
needed but that wouldn`t work under XP. It`s as simple as that.

That you waited so long to get rid of a poor OS like Windows 98 (and only because you were forced) makes me believe that you don't or didn’t understand what NT technology stands for.

Nor did I really care, if it works don`t fix it

Windows 2000 was not an upgrade of ME, Windows 2000 was based on NT, an operating system family independently developed my Microsoft for businesses that required higher reliability, security and better use of resources, in plain English; the best Windows OS at that time when it was released. Most people however didn’t know of its existence because it was mainly used by a few businesses.
The first version of NT already appeared in 1993, that was the time that most users were still mostly using Windows 3.11 and was also the first fully 32 bit OS.

Are you crazy? I used my trusted Amiga in those days, true
multytasking and 32 bit handling and a much better GUI then windows had.

So when NT technology became available for the masses, there was absolutely no reason to stick to a much inferior technology that the old operating systems were based on, unless you were playing a lot of computer games. And trust me, as a system administrator since ’87 who had/has to install, upgrade and maintain Windows computers/networks on a daily basis, I know how bad the old operating systems were compared to NT. NT wasn’t perfect, but it was a huge improvement.

Yeah all very nice, but I kept using 98 and it worked fine for me.
Until it didn`t anymore, and then I installed XP, I liked it, but
if there wouldn`t have been a reason to upgrade it, I would have used
98 until I got a new computer.

The reason why people didn’t switch to Windows 2000 immediately was plain and simple because of the fact that most thought that Windows 2000 was just an upgrade of the worst Windows OS ever…cough, cough…Windows ME. What they didn’t know is that they got an operating system that was basically developed about 6-7 years earlier and which was really put to the test in businesses during all these years. It actually took several years after the introduction of Windows 2000 before the majority of less experienced users started to understand that they were basically dealing with a different family (NT) of Windows. However Vista is a further development of XP and less revolutionary as Windows 2000 was compared to Windows 98/ME and therefore I personally think it’s less urgent to upgrade.

I see no reason why I should upgrade too, just like with 98 to XP
there has to be a reason for the upgrade, there is none yet, so
I keep using XP.

So don't understand me wrong; the fact that I predict that the majority of the home users will use Vista after one year, doesn't mean that I think people should upgrade, I have a different opinion about that.

After a year some will have it, simple because they buy new computers
and it is already installed. And a lot of people now own more then one computer so they can run both, XP and Vista, on seperate computers
which will be neccesary, because the old one pobably couldn`t handle
the best options of Vista anyway.

[handrawn]

Are you crazy? I used my trusted Amiga in those days, true
multytasking and 32 bit handling and a much better GUI then windows had.

realtime goodtimes.... those were the days... sigh

And a lot of people now own more then one computer so they can run both, XP and Vista, on seperate computers
which will be neccesary, because the old one pobably couldn`t handle
the best options of Vista anyway.

yep though in my case at present XP and linux

the end product is what's most important not the means for its own sake
so when something does what you want you cherish it.

[BlueFlare]

I know people who kept using 98 because they had old software they needed but that wouldn`t work under XP. It`s as simple as that.

In 2010 very few people will still be using ’98 because of one application that they really need, To use your own words: it’s as simple as that.

Are you crazy? I used my trusted Amiga in those days, true
multytasking and 32 bit handling and a much better GUI then windows had.

I wrote: “best Windows OS at that time”. I never made any comparison with other operating system in my complete reply, it was all about comparing NT with non-NT Windows operating systems. I admit that I stumbled and forgot to write “was also the first fully Windows 32 bit OS” instead of ““was also the first fully 32 bit OS” but is that reason for you to call me crazy?

After a year some will have it, simple because they buy new computers and it is already installed. And a lot of people now own more then one computer so they can run both, XP and Vista, on seperate computers which will be neccesary, because the old one pobably couldn`t handle the best options of Vista anyway.

Every new Windows OS had higher hardware requirements, Vista is no exception and neither is it an exception for any new release of larger applications.
It’s also a misconception to think that you really need the latest video card or core2duo to run Vista. Again, I’m not promoting Vista, just stating some facts.

[AntonyF]

Xara's phone system runs on Windows 3.1. :-o