Whilst not wanting to get into the former 'debate' and the pros and cons of each OS etc.
I do firmly believe if (any) OS is good enough, by that I mean secure, stable, resource friendly, and having the features the user requires. It will to a certain extent sell itself.
One need only look back at the numerous freeware, plus open source apps and utilities that have excelled at what they do, and ergo gained notoriety and respect and a fan/user base.
Many of these are now fully fledged paid-up or subscription based products and services. They basically got where they did as they provided what was needed.
The same model applies to any software. If your product is wanted or, better yet, needed. Then you will have demand.
Personally I'm quite happy with XP. It has withstood the rigours of time, and has been patched and fixed to make a pretty decent OS.
It does everything I need, and I would see no need to upgrade to a newer OS until it provided the same level of security, stability, resource friendliness I deem necessary to warrant a desirable operating system. If the newer OS used double the resources but provided no extra features I needed or even wanted, then there would be no gain in changing from what I have.
I guess many other users are the same, and as such they will only upgrade to Vista once the OS provides them with something they need that their current OS doesn't deliver.
In a nutshell, MS should make us the users want Vista, not force compliance by removing the only viable alternative for home users.
(For the record, yes I have used Vista, but as already mentioned, XP is better for my needs.
)
I do firmly believe if (any) OS is good enough, by that I mean secure, stable, resource friendly, and having the features the user requires. It will to a certain extent sell itself.
One need only look back at the numerous freeware, plus open source apps and utilities that have excelled at what they do, and ergo gained notoriety and respect and a fan/user base.
Many of these are now fully fledged paid-up or subscription based products and services. They basically got where they did as they provided what was needed.
The same model applies to any software. If your product is wanted or, better yet, needed. Then you will have demand.
Personally I'm quite happy with XP. It has withstood the rigours of time, and has been patched and fixed to make a pretty decent OS.
It does everything I need, and I would see no need to upgrade to a newer OS until it provided the same level of security, stability, resource friendliness I deem necessary to warrant a desirable operating system. If the newer OS used double the resources but provided no extra features I needed or even wanted, then there would be no gain in changing from what I have.
I guess many other users are the same, and as such they will only upgrade to Vista once the OS provides them with something they need that their current OS doesn't deliver.
In a nutshell, MS should make us the users want Vista, not force compliance by removing the only viable alternative for home users.
(For the record, yes I have used Vista, but as already mentioned, XP is better for my needs.
)
