When a new operating system is released, I tend to:
--Be the first one on the block to get it. (Please explain.)
--Wait a few weeks/months after its release before getting it. (Please explain.)
--Do some research first to see if there are any issues with it, then act accordingly. (Please explain.)
--Wait until I absolutely have to have it before getting it. (Please explain.)
--Be the last one on the block to get it. (Please explain.)
--Other. (What is it?)
If it's Windows, I always wait until at least SP1. (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!) If it's Ubuntu or another popular, well-supported Linux distro, I usually give it a month before installing it. That's typically long enough for any teething problems to be worked out.
...if it's Windows, I won't even install SP1 until/unless it becomes _absolutely_ necessary. I'm currently running WinXP MCE on my primary Windows machine and never plan on "upgrading" to either Vista or Win7. I've recently retired and am currently migrating to Linux (Ubuntu Studio).
I started with Mick Jagger and Win 95. Minutes and hours on the phone with HP and Windows Tech Support were countless. Since tthen i have purchased Win 98, Win XP 2004, IMAC 2008 all new machines. I am convinced Bill Gates model is not benefical to me.
I dislike change, and changing the OS, even as a gentle upgrade, is a major event in my life. I am proficient enough to make things run, to figure stuff out once it's installed, but my main concern is always, what if something goes horribly wrong and I can't fix it?
And if I like what works for me, why change? Yes, yes, I know, faster, better, brighter and it dissolves those ugly rust stains on the tub--but this is MINE. I shaped it. I love it. Even if I can only run older software, it's still okay. Maybe next week.
Could not have said it any better! You voiced my feelings and it takes me back to an old saying, "If it ain't broke - don't fix it."
I have a dual boot machine; since I hated to part with ME (yes, ME), we rigged up the XP to keep it company. My husband has a triple boot computer with 95, 98, and XP, and he has a DOS box embedded somehow so he can view his older files that are just so much hash on XP.
As you can see, this is not a family that changes willingly or rapidly, and we do listen, as well, to what other people say about the next adventure in software. Which is why we are waiting out the Vista disaster. Luddites, by golly, we're just Luddites.
I was amazed at how many people do NOT rush out to buy the latest and fanciest--then again, maybe they do and just don't talk about it...?
I have necessary productivity software that isn't Vista capable. XP Pro works fine for me and it runs my programs. Why spend hundreds, and I means many multiple hundreds of dollars to replace good software just because a new OS is available.
I agree. If the system I have is adequate for my needs, why go through the hassle of switching over to something new? I didn't grow up with computers, and every time I successfully manage to install something new it is a big deal, but that doesn't mean I want to do it for kicks. I have XP and it works fine for me. Eventually I will have to replace my computer. Time enough to switch to the latest version then, and deal with all the stress of learning a new system.
Unless the new system has some great features or fixes some problem of my current system, I'll stick with what I have ...
Some people just like to explore
I've spent time on the leading edge of several technologies, which often then becomes the "bleeding edge." Since I'm tired of bleeding I wait and let others find most of the problems, along with their solutions. With Microsoft this usually is after SP1 is released. Stability, and persistent operation are important to me. Several products seem to add bells-and-whistles, most of which I don't need. Consistent dependability is now more important to me. It just seems less painful.
I bought a new computer, and decided to go with Vista. Initially it did have some problems, but it never completely shut me down. A little frustration from time to time, but never ended up hating it. Just be sure to turn of UAC. Maybe the UAC function will be improved in Windows 7, but the one in Vista is really a pain. I will probably wait until Windows 7 is out for about a year before I update to it, and that might mean buying a new computer. My current computer will be about 3 years old at that time, and there likely will be new improved hardware available. I want one with at least an 8 core processor. I have a 4 core now, and that is good, but the Q6600 is one of the first Intel quads released, and will likely work with Windows 7, but new can sometime be quite a bit better. I am not currently having any appreciable problems with Vista, and am well satisfied, but will look at Windows 7 when it is released, and watch it's progress to Stability. I hope that is within 6 months of release.
I stuck with Windows 2000 Pro until well after XP was in Sp2 status. My only reason for upgrading then was not because XP was so much better (It, in fact, was far from better and still is not as smooth and user friendly as 2000), but because software programs that I wanted were beginning to require XP or higher to install and run. I will probably stay with XP now until frograms start requiring Vista or higher OS. I will then upgrade to Windows 7 or a later OS. I will NEVER, under ANY circumstances purchase another copy of Vista or another Vista equipped computer.
I would wait until I need a new computer; XP is working fine.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |