-
January 12th, 2006, 06:03 PM
#11
maybe MS will except trade-ins
ROFLMAO.....
I'd send that to BG if I were you.... He probably needs a good giggle too....
Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
\"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides
-
January 12th, 2006, 06:03 PM
#12
maybe MS will except trade-ins
ROFLMAO.....
I'd send that to BG if I were you.... He probably needs a good giggle too....
Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
\"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides
-
January 12th, 2006, 06:29 PM
#13
I'm trying to figure out where you're getting 8 years. XP has only be out in official release since about 2002 (four years). We're only on SP2, btw. I used Win2k server and workstation for just over three years and was at SP6 before leaving it behind. We won't even go into NT 3.x and NT 4.x.
Even so, eight years, yes, is a very long time for an OS. While it may not be as evident as it was in the 90's, hardware keeps getting better and more capable. The OS's have to keep up. I went from a PC XT to a 486 in one jump. A lot of the old stuff I used to run on the XT just wasn't up to running on a 486DX.
Also, keep in mind the economics of the product life cycle. I hear a lot of folks complaining about the cost of XP. We are getting a bargain in comparison to some (midrange and big iron) where long life cycles and perpetual support are the norm. If Microsoft were to maintain and provide extended support indefinitely for all the OSs (98, ME, XP), we would be paying more than $1,000 per copy for the next OS, and Microsoft would have three times the employees.
Problem is, MS couldn't maintain that level of production because the consumer wouldn't pay for it.
Even open source moves on. I sure wouldn't try to run and maintain a Linux 1.x version today.
-
January 12th, 2006, 06:29 PM
#14
I'm trying to figure out where you're getting 8 years. XP has only be out in official release since about 2002 (four years). We're only on SP2, btw. I used Win2k server and workstation for just over three years and was at SP6 before leaving it behind. We won't even go into NT 3.x and NT 4.x.
Even so, eight years, yes, is a very long time for an OS. While it may not be as evident as it was in the 90's, hardware keeps getting better and more capable. The OS's have to keep up. I went from a PC XT to a 486 in one jump. A lot of the old stuff I used to run on the XT just wasn't up to running on a 486DX.
Also, keep in mind the economics of the product life cycle. I hear a lot of folks complaining about the cost of XP. We are getting a bargain in comparison to some (midrange and big iron) where long life cycles and perpetual support are the norm. If Microsoft were to maintain and provide extended support indefinitely for all the OSs (98, ME, XP), we would be paying more than $1,000 per copy for the next OS, and Microsoft would have three times the employees.
Problem is, MS couldn't maintain that level of production because the consumer wouldn't pay for it.
Even open source moves on. I sure wouldn't try to run and maintain a Linux 1.x version today.
-
January 12th, 2006, 06:40 PM
#15
I'm trying to figure out where you're getting 8 years. XP has only be out in official release since about 2002 (four years). We're only on SP2, btw. I used Win2k server and workstation for just over three years and was at SP6 before leaving it behind. We won't even go into NT 3.x and NT 4.x.
Sorry to correct you here...
But W2k is at sp 4.....plus a gazilion patches
NT is at SP6a..........plus
And I agree with you....new hardware drives new software
MHO as always
MLF
How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer
-
January 12th, 2006, 06:40 PM
#16
I'm trying to figure out where you're getting 8 years. XP has only be out in official release since about 2002 (four years). We're only on SP2, btw. I used Win2k server and workstation for just over three years and was at SP6 before leaving it behind. We won't even go into NT 3.x and NT 4.x.
Sorry to correct you here...
But W2k is at sp 4.....plus a gazilion patches
NT is at SP6a..........plus
And I agree with you....new hardware drives new software
MHO as always
MLF
How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer
-
January 12th, 2006, 06:57 PM
#17
Yeah, well, I'm old. I get to have the little lapses now and then.
Thanks for the correction.
-
January 12th, 2006, 06:57 PM
#18
Yeah, well, I'm old. I get to have the little lapses now and then.
Thanks for the correction.
-
January 12th, 2006, 07:02 PM
#19
Yeah, well, I'm old. I get to have the little lapses now and then.
Me too......I think the date 2008 got stuck somewhere, and it came out like 8 yrs while I was typing it out....which makes it sound worse now as it is only 6 yrs..........
PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...
"When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
Claude Swanson
-
January 12th, 2006, 07:02 PM
#20
Yeah, well, I'm old. I get to have the little lapses now and then.
Me too......I think the date 2008 got stuck somewhere, and it came out like 8 yrs while I was typing it out....which makes it sound worse now as it is only 6 yrs..........
PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...
"When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
Claude Swanson
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|