Re:What an upgrade! Even the latest hardware may not work right under Windows XP, and programs may have problems, too.
Right. I forgot that the upgrade process, with each new round of technology, software, and peripherals, promises to be an increasing headache.
For computers I bought in 1983, 1984, 1987, 1994, and 1996 the only peripherals I had were a printer, and (earlier on) an external floppy drive and a cassette drive. Software I used was pretty much limited to word processor, spreadsheet, and a few games.
My 1998 upgraded machine also occasionally had a scanner and PalmPilot attached.
My 2000-purchased machine has to handle a Palm cradle, an analog-video conversion peripheral, a USB-hub, a CF drive, a 1994 legacy HP laserjet printer, a photo scanner, a slide scanner, an Audible-enabled mp3 player, an external cable modem...and that's just the hardware. I've got at least 5x10 times as many software applications on my machine as I did 5 years ago.
The first 5 upgrades were pretty simple replacements, each time to a faster computer that could do more things. But an upgrade now has come to mean a new machine that requires 2-3 days of hardware and software installation. (Last year's new machine 'upgrade' took about 1-1/2 days).
To give you an idea, I bought a Dell last year just before Windows ME came out; Dell shipped me a copy of the software a month later. I never bothered installing it, though, because of the amount of time I knew it would take to reinstall/troubleshoot all the hardware and software, and because of the horrible reviews of (in)compatibility with Windows ME.
Bottom line: Even new killer may be unable by themselves to cause users to jump at an upgrade. The 'MS factor' (upgrade time and headaches), which a decade ago wasn't much of an issue, needs to be taken into account as well.
Andre |
