Community poll forum: Poll: When a new operating system is released, I tend to:

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.

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.

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 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.

Unless the new system has some great features or fixes some problem of my current system, I'll stick with what I have ...

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 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.

If it's a Linux distribution I get it as fast as I can and I VM it.

If it's Windows I wait a year or two until the service packs start rolling in.

I have a large number of clients who feel they need the latest and greatest and will go out and get it, sight unseen and without even considering if their hardware will support it. I spend many hours sorting out new drivers and patches to get their hardware to work with the new OS. Half the time I wind up having to go back to the original OS and reloading their backup if they have one. This became a real headache with Vista and many users still don't understand why their hardware isn't good enough to run it. I will build a system for my own uses and begin with the lowest version of OS I own and work my way up what I determine to be the best suited for the hardware. Instead of upgrading a system to support new software its much easier to build a new system that exceeds what the new OS requires and work from there. Many new OS platforms lag in support for older hardware as with the case of Vista, drivers for some hardware doesn't exist and drivers from XP don't get moved up to Vista, rendering good hardware unusable. Stick with what works well and forget the new platforms until all the bugs are worked out.

Not for it to become "stable" or for a service pack, but I wait until I can afford a new machine if my current one can't run it. I don't get why people say they need to wait for Windows to be proven stable, but will rush out and use a new distro of Linux immediately. I can kind of see an arguement that you have to pay for Windows, but Linux is mostly free. That, however, is a poor excuse. Time is money. Okay, if you have to spend time to get Windows to work you're "spending" even more money. Still, how can you call yourself a geek if you can't get your old hardware to work on a 64-bit system before it has any 64-bit drivers? Some pieces of my computer still don't have the correct drivers, but I've still gotten everything to work. I did resently replace the USB wireless adapter with a wireless bridge, but it was because it was a pain to get working, not because I couldn't get it to work at all. Cisco is being a buttmunch, and only releasing the 64-bit drivers through Windows Update. Might as well not have released them at all if you're using a desktop that can't be easily moved to a wired connection.

My policy is to replace my entire system (hardware and software) every five years. In 1997, I had hardware of that vintage plus W95. In 2002 I replaced that with new hardware and XP. In 2007 I replaced that with new hardware and Vista. By this plan I will change hardware and OS again in 2012 (unless something unexpected requires me to change earlier). I also usually upgrade my productivity software at the same time; am currently running Office 2007 for example. When replacing hardware, I also usually replace my monitor & printer/scanner at the same time. This way I have a 'matched set' of hardware,software, and peripherals. And on average over time, I spend about the same amount of money as I would doing things piecemeal.

When a new OP is releashed there may be bugs, holes, etc in the system that could cause problems. I wait to see what will be releashed concerning the OP, then research through sites such as CNET to gain the experts opinion of the OP. I weigh the pros and cons then make the decision.

--Other. (What is it?)

I wait until my computers die. When I replace my computers I use whatever OS comes with them.

I don't like the idea of "renting" software from MS. Happily I only have to keep our little three computer network running so I don't have to stay up to date on the latest greatest OS like many of the techs have to. Trying out a new OS just for fun rates about the same is root canal work with me.

At present my boxes are running well. I probably won't have to worry about a new OS until Windows 2012 arrives. At that point I may very well switch to one of the free Linux operating systems.

With XP I waited until I had hardware that could run it comfortably, which was 3 years after XP was launched; before that I used a combination of Windows 98 and Windows 2000.

Experiencing Vista on other people's machines it is so bad I refuse to have any computer with Vista and recently bought 2 Acer Aspire One netbooks with XP, which satisfied our mobile requirements.

The netbooks have been so productive we will have more netbooks with a 10 inch screens because the smaller Acer screen is just a little bit too small for some applications.

All our computers dual boot to Ubuntu and I upgrade Ubuntu immediately the final release is available.

I dread the thought of having to go to Windows 7; for me an OS is something the computer has to run applications and not a way of life as Microsoft seems to think.

Ubuntu is getting close to a total Windows replacement so I may never got to any Microsoft OS after XP.

It depends.

From 3.11 to Win 95 I jumped fairly quick. I was slower to adopt Win 98 until I bought a new computer, kicking myself for having lost my 95 disk. Upon reading user comments I did not adopt Win ME so I sprung for Win 2K when it was released. Once XP was released I would say I was the first among friends and family to get it, actually waited in line to buy it early in the morning. Did quite a lot of research yet pre-ordered Vista to give it a shot, it lasted 3 days before I formatted that drive and tossed it into the filing cabinet. In going from XP Pro to Win 7, my jury is still out, I do know that I am going to wait a few months at least to make certain everything with drivers, etc is ironed out before buying it.