To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
With OSS you get improved version of a software for free. With MS you have to pay, for _any_ improvement expect obvious bug-fixes and security improvements. So MS products never get properly polished, instead you get a new version each two years, which again has it's own set of deficiencies (as any version X.0.0 software). Maybe they should learn from Apple.
Also MS tends to change apps, like their UI, just for sake of changing it, so that it would have a new and shiny product look. OK, service packs are exception, but that happens too rarely, and often brings just a load of quite conservative bugfixes.
Big problem for MS is that this isn't the era of rapid informatisation anymore. Selling now means mostly replacing old version with a new, and, in many cases, retraining of staff. No wonder why businesses tend to stay with old versions as long as possible.
With OSS it's different. Community-based approach doesn't allow cutting out a good working part, until no one complains (after a long bitrotting). So software gets upgrades more carefully, incrementally, caring for example about users with old distributions.






Member since:
2006-07-25
I agree ive had lots of blurb from Microsoft regarding selling Vista against XP, Exchange 2007 against 2000/03 and event 4.5. As you have stated really the main competition comes from Microsoft itself, why bother upgrading when all of the features of Office were pretty much met in Office 97, let alone, 2000/XP/03/07.