The below is right on. A contributing factor is that many folks perhaps think that the improved "security" of the OS is simply locking down the user even more for the convenience of the IT department. Windows 2000 still does about everything I want to do. I do have a second hard drive running XP for times when I absolutely have to have it, but I can't recall the last time I booted from it.
At 10:30 AM 10/16/2009, Tom Piwowar wrote: >http://daringfireball.net/2009/10/microsofts_competition_for_windows_7 > >"What if the reason why most PCs are still running XP has nothing to do with >whether Vista is good or bad, but rather is the result of indifference >on the part of whoever owns these untold millions of XP machines, be they at >home or in a corporate IT environment. I.e., that switching to Vista, >regardless of Vistas merits, seemed like too much work and too much new >stuff to learn; that the nature of the PC as a universal commodity is such >that most of them belong to people who value old and familiar more than >new and improved but therefore different. If thats the case, Windows 7 >may not do any better than Vista. Perhaps Windows 7s competition isnt so >much XP as it is apathy. > >"Put another way, the idea that Windows 7s quality will spur upgrades from >XP is predicated on the fact that the people holding out on XP make their >computing choices based on quality. But if thats the case, why exactly are >they still running Windows XP? Why are they still using Internet Explorer? I >think its hard to overstate the fact that, with the explosion of the >Internet as a universal communication medium, hundreds of millions of PCs >have been purchased around the world by people who dont care about >computers or software at all." ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
