Vista - Ballmer says

[Ballmer: No More Long Waits Between Windows Releases - Paul Thurrott at
Windowsitpo]

http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowsp...ott_71318.html



Personally, I was all for the long delay. I was getting sick of new versions
and caught an awful case of "upgrade fatigue". Somebody tell Ballmer some of
us don't mind a good run for an OS. If it's worth developing and publishing
and if it's worth it for me to learn it, then it's worth a good solid run.

I kind of agree. Im not so sure I would want a whole new OS every 2 or 3
years. Especially as they are getting more sophisticated. In the early days
of Windows it wasnt so bad. The difference between 3.1 and 95 was really
cool. I wanted that kind of sunctionality as soon as they could release it.
But now it seems to be a little unnecessary to be too frequent.
--


(¯`·._.·Ecat·._.·´¯)
HP a1230n
Athlon 64 Processor 3800+
1 Gig RAM
Radeon X700

"Ground Cover" <ground@cover.internet> wrote in message
news:OZF4XCSqGHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Personally, I was all for the long delay. I was getting sick of new
> versions
> and caught an awful case of "upgrade fatigue". Somebody tell Ballmer some
> of
> us don't mind a good run for an OS. If it's worth developing and
> publishing
> and if it's worth it for me to learn it, then it's worth a good solid run.

Amen!!!

Well personally I agree that I don't need a new OS every couple of years
but that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't think MS should release
one every six months if they could. None of us are forced to buy it and
if too few do then it wouldn't be viable for MS to produce them. What
I'd really like to see are really viable alternatives.

Michael A. Covington wrote:
> "Ground Cover" <ground@cover.internet> wrote in message
> news:OZF4XCSqGHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>> Personally, I was all for the long delay. I was getting sick of new
>> versions
>> and caught an awful case of "upgrade fatigue". Somebody tell Ballmer some
>> of
>> us don't mind a good run for an OS. If it's worth developing and
>> publishing
>> and if it's worth it for me to learn it, then it's worth a good solid run.
>
> Amen!!!
>
>

If it wasn't for the inherent security issues in the design of XP I wouldn't
mind sticking with it. But Vista does leverage a lot of new hardware
technology that XP struggles with and I'm ready for a new system. After
that, well I'm getting too old to care.

"Ground Cover" <ground@cover.internet> wrote in message
news:OZF4XCSqGHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> [Ballmer: No More Long Waits Between Windows Releases - Paul Thurrott at
> Windowsitpo]
>
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowsp...ott_71318.html
>
>
>
> Personally, I was all for the long delay. I was getting sick of new
> versions
> and caught an awful case of "upgrade fatigue". Somebody tell Ballmer some
> of
> us don't mind a good run for an OS. If it's worth developing and
> publishing
> and if it's worth it for me to learn it, then it's worth a good solid run.
>
>

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:58:58 +0100, Bernie wrote:

> Well personally I agree that I don't need a new OS every couple of
> years but that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't think MS
> should release one every six months if they could. None of us are
> forced to buy it and if too few do then it wouldn't be viable for
> MS to produce them. What I'd really like to see are really viable
> alternatives.

Apple/Mac seem to release new versions every year. No-one seems to
complain.

--
Chris Game

I know. I have Tiger now and am looking forward to Leopard. But keeping
OS/X up to date has cost me $600 now. In the same time XP Pro cost me $300
and the service packs have been free.

"Chris Game" <chrisgame@example.net> wrote in message
news:ycpv5j34hckl.f02309ygdsgy$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:58:58 +0100, Bernie wrote:
>
>> Well personally I agree that I don't need a new OS every couple of
>> years but that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't think MS
>> should release one every six months if they could. None of us are
>> forced to buy it and if too few do then it wouldn't be viable for
>> MS to produce them. What I'd really like to see are really viable
>> alternatives.
>
> Apple/Mac seem to release new versions every year. No-one seems to
> complain.
>
> --
> Chris Game

>
> Apple/Mac seem to release new versions every year. No-one seems to
> complain.

Yeah but when Apple releases a new OS, I have to install it on four
machines.
When a new version of Windows comes out, I have to install it on six hundred
machines. Apple is a lot less trouble for me. 8^)

Tom Lake

I understand that Tom but if MS didn't come up with new things a lot of
us would be out of jobs. Would that be a lot less trouble? :-)


Tom Lake wrote:
>> Apple/Mac seem to release new versions every year. No-one seems to
>> complain.
>
> Yeah but when Apple releases a new OS, I have to install it on four
> machines.
> When a new version of Windows comes out, I have to install it on six hundred
> machines. Apple is a lot less trouble for me. 8^)
>
> Tom Lake
>
>

"Chris Game" <chrisgame@example.net> wrote in message
news:ycpv5j34hckl.f02309ygdsgy$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:58:58 +0100, Bernie wrote:
>
>> Well personally I agree that I don't need a new OS every couple of
>> years but that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't think MS
>> should release one every six months if they could. None of us are
>> forced to buy it and if too few do then it wouldn't be viable for
>> MS to produce them. What I'd really like to see are really viable
>> alternatives.
>
> Apple/Mac seem to release new versions every year. No-one seems to
> complain.
>

There aren't that many users to complain

> --
> Chris Game