Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
XP or Vista user — take the poll!
zridling:
If you're willing to hold out till 2010, Windows 7 will be here, but according to Microsoft's Pay-As-You-Go FlexGo plan, future versions will include Symantec-like subscription models, i.e., buy as much of the OS as you use or can afford, and expand the OS as needed.
On the other hand, shouldn't Windows 7 be Windows 11? I presume Microsoft is not counting 1, 2, 3, and ME.
01. Windows 1.0
02. Windows 2.0/2.1
03. Windows 3.0/3.1
04. Windows 95
05. Windows 98
06. Windows ME
07. Windows NT
08. Windows 2000
09. Windows XP
10. Windows Vista
11. Windows 7
f0dder:
Not too familiar with the 3.x versions (I was only a user back then, and never used win3.x too much, since most of what I used was DOS based back then).
Win9x = 95, 98, Me - no big architectural changes.
WinNT = 3.x, 4.x, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), Vista - some arch changes for major versions.
And well, I'm happily sticking with XP for as long as possible, Vista doesn't really bring anything great and wonderful for me. There's a couple of kernel changes that are nice, but with the rest of the system being so bloated, no thanks ma'am. Hopefully Microsoft won't be successful in forcing too many companies to make interesting stuff Vista-only, although they are trying (like DirectX and hybrid harddrive support being Vista-only, even though there's no good reason for this.)
steeladept:
The way Microsoft is going, I will only use Windows if I get it for free. I find their licenses far too restrictive for the price I pay given what I use it for. I am finding Linux will do what I want for a fraction of the price, with a better quality of user base (in general), and with little or no impact on other aspects of my computing. The only real hit will be in gaming, but with my daughters, I rarely get time to do that anymore anyway. As things move more to a SaaS architecture, the OS will become less relevant anyway. I generally like windows, but the brutality Microsoft shows towards its customers is VERY grating on me. With the very real alternatives to Windows now available, I may find it worth voting with my money for another OS. Hmm...I still really like what I am seeing from Linux Mint distributions...
nudone:
xp here, until i have to use vista - which i don't think will happen. 2010 sounds like a better time to change from xp. maybe linux will run what i want by then - or something just as good. whatever, i would assume there'll be some funky ways of using virtual operating systems by then so things might be a bit blurry.
app103:
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1 (aka Windows/286 and Windows/386)
Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 3.11 for Workgroups (WfW)
---
Windows 95 (Windows 4.0)
Windows 98 (Windows 4.1), Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows Millennium Edition (Windows 4.9)
---
Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0)
Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1)
Windows Server 2003, Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 (Windows NT 5.2)
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (Windows NT 5.2)
Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (Windows NT 5.1+)
Windows Vista (Windows NT 6.0)
(from wikipedia)
so...next one being 7 sounds about right.
Now about that Pay-as-you-go plan...
People thought I was crazy when I suggested this was going to be the future of Windows when I mentioned it back in 2002.
At that time I had thought it would be that maybe you'd get a basic OS for free (like you can get Linux for free), with them passing out disks in much the same way AOL did (flooding the market with their 'free' product). They would probably only release a new version of the CD about once every 10 years, but continue to have newer versions of Windows as a series of 'patches' to be applied to the one that is available on disk, and them keeping the disk always behind the current version when they release a new CD.
And that to access Windows Update to get these 'patches' would be on a yearly or monthly subscription, which all patches and upgrades to bring you up to the current Windows version would be offered, once you paid. Without the fee being paid, it is possible that they would cause your OS to 'expire' and they would have some way of shutting it down till you called and gave credit card info over the phone. (much in the same way you pay for internet access and it gets shut off if you don't pay your bill)
If they offered it this way, they would have much less problems with piracy on their hands, and less of a problem with people running older more insecure versions, because they could force newer versions on people... but at the same time, there would be no way people of lower incomes would be able to afford to run it.
It is also possible that on an older machine that couldn't handle an upgrade, that the OS would shut down permanently, forcing you to buy a new computer if you wanted to continue using Windows.
As I can see now, they aren't going this far...yet. (at least not with their next version of Windows)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version