Very true, but that's what those companies are saying. They have to convince objective users. They basically said: You need new Vista, because it looks cool. Not good enough for me, because I even run XP as the old system.
Originally Posted by seraphim
I'm running Firefox 2, I don't intend to switch to Firefox 3 in the near future. I'll let other people test the thing for me.
Don't believe me, check which version of IE/Safari/Firefox you are running, when Netscape surfed the web perfectly fine.
I use Office 2003. Here's the story. When the Office 2007 came out (and there was possibility to use it for my work) I simply tested all versions. I've done those test myself.
What about that office application you are running? Are you telling me that Office '97 couldn't have written that book report? Emails were never sent with Outlook 2000?
Access 2000: 12 seconds
Access 2003: 5 seconds
Access 2007: 41 seconds
I've asked some of my co-workers to test the same thing and the results were the same. I told my boss about it and as a result we now use Access 2003. If you ask Microsoft, which Office they recommend, what do you think their answer would be?
Again, I understand THEIR philosophy. But I don't need to care about what they want. They'll have to put out a better product for me to buy it. Hardware can get obsolete fast, but you can use software for a long time. DirectX10, for example. Microsoft intentionally puts out new versions which require new operating systems. But when a PC game guru like John Carmack says "I don't care about this DX10. My game might be compatible with it or it might not be compatible with it. I don't know yet." - then you see that real users just don't think that way. If Microsoft wants Vista to be successful, they'll have to offer more. The numbers are not lying, it is being sold far under their expectations.
IT departments have huge budgets that they MUST use up each year lest they wont be funded the next year. These budgets go to software and hardware that doesn't necessarily *work* as well as the old one, but it's the new one. It's more obvious with computer technology because next year your **** is obsolete, EVEN your software.
You can do the benchmarks for yourself, just as I did with the office. Access 2008 being 8 times slower at doing a particular task (which I use a LOT) tells me everything I need to know about it. Also type "Office 2007 slow" in Google and see what you get. Vista is special case and my prediction is, that Microsoft will get out a new system much faster then they planned before. That's why I can't agree with your post - in 4 years we will all be on new OS. The only thing I know about that OS is, that it will have no mentioning of Vista in its name. As I said there has been one similar case in Windows history and it's called Windows ME.
There were retarded ****ers showing the benchmarks about how Windows 3.11 was faster and better than Windows 95 doing their menial task. These people probably understood the benefits of Betamax or HD-DVD. It doesn't matter, switch to Vista or fall behind. In 4 years they'll be bitching how Vista is a better operating system than MS's new OS 2012, and how smart they are for keeping their home laptop using obsolete technology.