Upgrade Much?

I'm trying to get school work done today, but I got sidetracked a bit ago while working with my CS project and a thought occurred to me: I currently run three different operating systems in my life, and I deal with more than double that if you count CE devices.

An article that I recently read can be summed up like this: Windows Vista is one of the most moot operating systems in existence. It has no real purpose in the marketplace other than to provide Microsoft with a revenue stream for a few more years. Windows XP works just fine for more than 90% of the computing world. I wish I had the link to the original article. It presented a lot of interesting points. Now it's time for my two cents.

Note: I have been using Windows Vista for about six months now. I run this alongside XP and and Ubuntu. I consider myself experienced with all three operating systems.

Throughout the entire history of computing, the very concept of computing can be broken down into three categories. HARDWARE is the physical computer, input/output devices, etc. SOFTWARE interacts with this hardware, utilizing it to do some work. The USER is a person who had some goal in mind. The software relies on the hardware to do work. The user relies on the software to help them accomplish a goal. Because users always demand more strenuous tasks to be completed, hardware can always improve. Software, however fragmented it can be known to be, does sometimes reach a point that it "just works" enough for to satisfy the current needs of the user. In other words, there is no need for an upgrade. The software industry is broken in that upgrades, no matter how unnecessary, are pushed onto users that don't need them.

So why do I need Windows Vista? Microsoft says that Vista provides great advances in usability, user control, and security. For one, the Aero user interface is designed to sell hardware, not provide any advances in usability: it simply isn't radically different from what XP uses.

With most every person I know completely familiar with Windows XP, and with Service Pack 2 providing rock-solid security, why does anyone need to move to Vista? Granted, hardware changes, such as multi-core processors and RAM sizes greater than four gigabytes, require higher-level processing, there's nothing from stopping Microsoft from working these upgrades into Windows XP, and perhaps charging a minimal amount for the users that would actually need the upgrade.

As it stands, Vista is being pushed onto a market that's perfectly content with what's available. I think more than anything, the curve to re-learn the usability of Vista is the most pressing issue that may harm Vista's adoption. Hardware compatibility is a close second. Above all, however, is simply the question that if XP works just fine, why upgrade?

Note to detractors: yes, I'm aware that Apple does a similar sort of market-push with OS X (10.3, 10.4, 10.5!?), but since I don't experience OS X in my daily life, I can't provide any personal insight. Ubuntu is a whole different beast, as the regular six-month upgrade schedule may seem to be too frequent for the average user to care about, but it does provide a quick-turn-around time for bugs, etc. and of course market value is not put into question, as it is always free of charge.

B3 out.