I must say, I'm easy when it comes to operating systems.
I was lucky enough to get into the Windows Vista, and subsequently, Windows 7, Beta testing. I therefore had the advantage of not having to dig to deep into my pocket to examine the OS’s.
Although my preference is Windows in all flavours.I try others, and they all have their advantages. My desktop dual boots Windows 7, 32 and 64 Bit. I experimented with a Linux server, as it has less overheads. I got no further than the server as I feel that even the new editions of Linux are too buggy.
People are so quick to forget how awful XP was for the first year. Driver support was the same then as it is now, companies refuse to write stable drivers (if any at all) for older equipment to encourage people to buy new products from them. I am in agreement with this policy Why should they spend money to write new drivers for every printer they made, when those printers will never again be sold and, subsequently, increase their profits. Any user who wishes to progress positively in Computer technology, and is willing to invest in what may well be an unnecessary new OS, should, at least, be prepared to update their hardware.
My preference for Windows is based on real-life experience, not just habit.
In way too many cases, people condemn operating systems or applications that they've never even used, or that they've only fooled around with for a few minutes or a few hours on a demo system at the store or a friend's computer.
In fact, some of the most adamant criticisms I heard about Vista, and, now, Windows 7, comes from some of my acquaintances who have never run the OS. They'll admit that they're basing their opinions on what they've heard from others, but insist that if those others are saying it, it must be true. I hear people proclaim, "I've never used Vista/7 and I never will" - just as proudly as they proclaimed the same thing about XP a few years ago.
A popular comment, for example is that the poster, etc., won't use Vista/7 because "the DRM prevents you from playing any of your previously downloaded musicâ€Â. That's 100% untrue - I play previously downloaded music on my machine all the time and so do many other people, and without any prior configuration. But it's something they have read on the web somewhere, and it has been integrated into what they "know" about the OS.
There are some good, legitimate, reasons not to upgrade. If you have older hardware that's not supported and you don't want to buy new peripherals or a new machine, or if you have applications that won't run on the new OS, that's a perfectly good reason to keep what you have.
But don't blame the OS (or Microsoft), when peripheral makers fail to provide drivers for their hardware components. Someone commented to me last week that he had bought a new computer and his Epson printer wouldn't work with it because "it's running that stupid Vista." Hey, that's Epson's fault, not Vista's. All my older HP printers worked just fine with Vista - because HP has provided Vista drivers for them. He searched the Epson site and couldn't find Vista drivers for his printer; sounds to me as if Epson wants you to buy a new printer instead. I'd recommend that when/if you do so, you make sure it's not an Epson.
Another good reason not to upgrade is because you don't need to. If your XP or Vista, computer works just fine and it's doing everything you want it to do, keep it. Don't feel pressured to go with the newest OS just because it is new. Just don't condemn the newest OS because it's new, either. And remember that XP went through its growing pains, too. Those who point fingers whenever a security flaw is found in Vista or 7 apparently have forgotten all those flaws that have been patched in XP. And those who grumble about new interfaces don't seem to remember that they were the same ones grumbling about all the changes that came with XP.
If you just don't want to pay for a new OS, you'll hear no argument from me. But for some, money has nothing to do with it. Many companies pay for the upgrades, although their employees are comfortable with their old, familiar operating system. And that brings us to some of the not-so-good reasons for not upgrading.
Some people aren't comfortable with new things, even if those new things are improvements. Likewise, I have acquaintances who take one look at the new Explorer or with Office 2007's ribbon interface and immediately "don't like it" without ever giving it a chance. I like learning new things and like to, more closely, examine these changes. New features such as the clickable paths in Explorer make it easier for me to get around in the file system, and I welcome that. It took a little getting used to and, in the case of Vista and 7, was a little of a new learning experience, such as the new Start/menu layout, but now I'd hate to be without it.
In many countries, the criminal justice system is built on the principle that a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. New products get no such protection. For those who have used a new OS for a few months and decided that they liked the previous one better, we just have a difference of opinion. The relative merit of an operating system interface is a subjective matter and some will always hate what others love. There's no problem with that. But for those who have judged the OS guilty - of user unfriendliness, of slowness, of security problems, or whatever else, without ever using it or after giving it a spin, cannot, in my view, have a worthwhile opinion.
I'll always support a persons individual right to use whatever software works best for them (including Mac and Linux), but can't they go ahead and use it without calling those of us who happen to like Microsoft products, “stupidâ€Â, or implying that we're nothing but Microsoft shills?
What do you think about the OS wars? Why do people (yes, myself sometimes included) have a tendency to denigrate others' choices? Why do so many folks fear anything that's new? Do you take pride in your refusal to upgrade - or on the other hand, do you take pride in being an early adopter? Have you vowed never to upgrade based on something you've read or heard, without ever actually trying the new software out for yourself? Or are you , possibly sensibly, waiting until the first service pack, or for a price drop, or until your current computer dies, or until your mission-critical applications have been upgraded to work with the new OS?
P.S.
I recently logged on to an original XP highly respected site.
If you have any doubts on the above, I would invite you to look at any XP forum. XP is a really good OS, yet after many years of maturity, requests for help, fault related, are still pouring in.
I was lucky enough to get into the Windows Vista, and subsequently, Windows 7, Beta testing. I therefore had the advantage of not having to dig to deep into my pocket to examine the OS’s.
Although my preference is Windows in all flavours.I try others, and they all have their advantages. My desktop dual boots Windows 7, 32 and 64 Bit. I experimented with a Linux server, as it has less overheads. I got no further than the server as I feel that even the new editions of Linux are too buggy.
People are so quick to forget how awful XP was for the first year. Driver support was the same then as it is now, companies refuse to write stable drivers (if any at all) for older equipment to encourage people to buy new products from them. I am in agreement with this policy Why should they spend money to write new drivers for every printer they made, when those printers will never again be sold and, subsequently, increase their profits. Any user who wishes to progress positively in Computer technology, and is willing to invest in what may well be an unnecessary new OS, should, at least, be prepared to update their hardware.
My preference for Windows is based on real-life experience, not just habit.
In way too many cases, people condemn operating systems or applications that they've never even used, or that they've only fooled around with for a few minutes or a few hours on a demo system at the store or a friend's computer.
In fact, some of the most adamant criticisms I heard about Vista, and, now, Windows 7, comes from some of my acquaintances who have never run the OS. They'll admit that they're basing their opinions on what they've heard from others, but insist that if those others are saying it, it must be true. I hear people proclaim, "I've never used Vista/7 and I never will" - just as proudly as they proclaimed the same thing about XP a few years ago.
A popular comment, for example is that the poster, etc., won't use Vista/7 because "the DRM prevents you from playing any of your previously downloaded musicâ€Â. That's 100% untrue - I play previously downloaded music on my machine all the time and so do many other people, and without any prior configuration. But it's something they have read on the web somewhere, and it has been integrated into what they "know" about the OS.
There are some good, legitimate, reasons not to upgrade. If you have older hardware that's not supported and you don't want to buy new peripherals or a new machine, or if you have applications that won't run on the new OS, that's a perfectly good reason to keep what you have.
But don't blame the OS (or Microsoft), when peripheral makers fail to provide drivers for their hardware components. Someone commented to me last week that he had bought a new computer and his Epson printer wouldn't work with it because "it's running that stupid Vista." Hey, that's Epson's fault, not Vista's. All my older HP printers worked just fine with Vista - because HP has provided Vista drivers for them. He searched the Epson site and couldn't find Vista drivers for his printer; sounds to me as if Epson wants you to buy a new printer instead. I'd recommend that when/if you do so, you make sure it's not an Epson.
Another good reason not to upgrade is because you don't need to. If your XP or Vista, computer works just fine and it's doing everything you want it to do, keep it. Don't feel pressured to go with the newest OS just because it is new. Just don't condemn the newest OS because it's new, either. And remember that XP went through its growing pains, too. Those who point fingers whenever a security flaw is found in Vista or 7 apparently have forgotten all those flaws that have been patched in XP. And those who grumble about new interfaces don't seem to remember that they were the same ones grumbling about all the changes that came with XP.
If you just don't want to pay for a new OS, you'll hear no argument from me. But for some, money has nothing to do with it. Many companies pay for the upgrades, although their employees are comfortable with their old, familiar operating system. And that brings us to some of the not-so-good reasons for not upgrading.
Some people aren't comfortable with new things, even if those new things are improvements. Likewise, I have acquaintances who take one look at the new Explorer or with Office 2007's ribbon interface and immediately "don't like it" without ever giving it a chance. I like learning new things and like to, more closely, examine these changes. New features such as the clickable paths in Explorer make it easier for me to get around in the file system, and I welcome that. It took a little getting used to and, in the case of Vista and 7, was a little of a new learning experience, such as the new Start/menu layout, but now I'd hate to be without it.
In many countries, the criminal justice system is built on the principle that a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. New products get no such protection. For those who have used a new OS for a few months and decided that they liked the previous one better, we just have a difference of opinion. The relative merit of an operating system interface is a subjective matter and some will always hate what others love. There's no problem with that. But for those who have judged the OS guilty - of user unfriendliness, of slowness, of security problems, or whatever else, without ever using it or after giving it a spin, cannot, in my view, have a worthwhile opinion.
I'll always support a persons individual right to use whatever software works best for them (including Mac and Linux), but can't they go ahead and use it without calling those of us who happen to like Microsoft products, “stupidâ€Â, or implying that we're nothing but Microsoft shills?
What do you think about the OS wars? Why do people (yes, myself sometimes included) have a tendency to denigrate others' choices? Why do so many folks fear anything that's new? Do you take pride in your refusal to upgrade - or on the other hand, do you take pride in being an early adopter? Have you vowed never to upgrade based on something you've read or heard, without ever actually trying the new software out for yourself? Or are you , possibly sensibly, waiting until the first service pack, or for a price drop, or until your current computer dies, or until your mission-critical applications have been upgraded to work with the new OS?
P.S.
I recently logged on to an original XP highly respected site.
If you have any doubts on the above, I would invite you to look at any XP forum. XP is a really good OS, yet after many years of maturity, requests for help, fault related, are still pouring in.
