Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Mar 2008 06:02 UTC, submitted by stonyandcher
Windows If you are sticking with XP - and plenty of us are - and you're planning to miss the upgrade to Vista read this article on the Australian PC World. It looks at big questions like: will Windows XP still be properly supported by Microsoft and, as a primary development target, by third parties? Is there something we've missed, some hidden gotcha that's going to trip us up?
Thread beginning with comment 305550
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Vista vs XP vs Apple?
by DonnyEMU on Tue 18th Mar 2008 17:33 UTC in reply to "Vista vs XP vs Apple?"
DonnyEMU
Member since:
2007-01-29

How can I say this. If you are a Mac user how often have you had to throw out your old hardware and buy new hardware.. XP has been out for over five years now.

The truth of the matter is, when OS X came out most old beige power Macs had to hit the sidewalk. The same thing is happening for newer powerPC Macs. Statistics show this year that the number of Intel Macs in use will surpass the number of PowerPCs on an order of like 2:1.. These old PowerPC based Macs are being discarded too..

So historically people have been required to make different hardware purchases on the Mac more often than Windows upgraders..

I don't mind that Vista is designed for faster processors and new 64-bit envioronments and newer graphics cards. I don't complain if I have to buy a new PC to get better performance or give up some legacy hardware to run the latest version. It's the product of a throw-away society. We aren't all tweakers and the latest geration works for me.

Most Windows upgrades have been painful for users from Windows 2000 and on since.. The complaints are due to the fact that Microsoft services everyone including people who haven't been through an upgrade cycle.

The new hardware is a compelling reason to upgrade especially with things like Server 08 coming. If you don't think you'll be stuck in obsolete hardware situations and a more costly upgrade with Apple think again history will prove you wrong too..

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Vista vs XP vs Apple?
by thabrain on Tue 18th Mar 2008 17:42 in reply to "RE: Vista vs XP vs Apple?"
thabrain Member since:
2005-06-29

How can I say this. If you are a Mac user how often have you had to throw out your old hardware and buy new hardware.. XP has been out for over five years now.

The truth of the matter is, when OS X came out most old beige power Macs had to hit the sidewalk. The same thing is happening for newer powerPC Macs. Statistics show this year that the number of Intel Macs in use will surpass the number of PowerPCs on an order of like 2:1.. These old PowerPC based Macs are being discarded too..

So historically people have been required to make different hardware purchases on the Mac more often than Windows upgraders..

I don't mind that Vista is designed for faster processors and new 64-bit envioronments and newer graphics cards. I don't complain if I have to buy a new PC to get better performance or give up some legacy hardware to run the latest version. It's the product of a throw-away society. We aren't all tweakers and the latest geration works for me.

Most Windows upgrades have been painful for users from Windows 2000 and on since.. The complaints are due to the fact that Microsoft services everyone including people who haven't been through an upgrade cycle.

The new hardware is a compelling reason to upgrade especially with things like Server 08 coming. If you don't think you'll be stuck in obsolete hardware situations and a more costly upgrade with Apple think again history will prove you wrong too..



I appreciate the comments.

However to mention a couple of things...

We haven't recycled hardware with Apple because we got into using Macs after the Intel changeover. Unless Jobs decides to go to another processor, most of Apple's systems will continue to run OS X and XP long enough for our needs.

Also, this is a business environment, where both hardware, applications software, network based software and servers would be affected. You may be right that just a hardware upgrade might not be such a bad thing, but there are other systems to deal with in regards to Vista in my environment, and it would be a serious undertaking. Management's decision, along with mine, is that we are unwilling to support a Vista environment until all infrastructure changes are made.

This gives us time to evaluate and determine each business process. If it works better in a Microsoft environment, so be it. But if the process can be moved to a platform that isn't dependent on a Microsoft OS (web based, Java based, etc.) then it doesn't matter what we use.

What I'm annoyed about is that in our view, Microsoft and it's OEM lock-in are determining the technology we use in our company. Senior management doesn't like that. They would rather dictate the type of technology used in our business for our business.

This solution gives them that opportunity.

Reply Parent Score: 2