On 2/6/07, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agreed Michael, but as users we all have choice over accepting and not > accepting updates to the OS. > Same with upgrades. I just want the choice to be extended longer than what we > get today with respect > to patches to existing operating systems moving forward.
Which operating systems, Rick? Operating systems manufacturers are businesses, and they have to have a justification for wanting to maintain older products, as well as a need to "innovate" new products and support for newer technologies, like 802.11n, SATA drives and Firewire-800. Are you arguing for some sort of government intervention to alter the behavior of the free market? > The reality in the business world is a machine's useful life is way longer > than what operating > system manufacturers are supporting from a security patch perspective. The > built in obsolescence is > not hardware, it is the OS, and it is not that the OS is not working and > providing hardware > services, it is security patches the operating system providers are stopping. Which providers? Apple seems to have addressed this issue by offering OS upgrades at a cost of around $130 each year or so. Microsoft's model seems more "out with the old, in with the new" at a every-slowing rate*. RedHat and SuSE and Ubuntu have long-term support plans, and the Open Source community offers many means of accessing free or inexpensive patches to keep software up-to-date and secure. So which provider is failing to support the needs of their customer base, Rick? How long would you want software supported for, and at what cost? Would users be required to pay for 5- or 7-year support contracts? Would the vendor have to include that in the price of the package? > Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along to bigger and > better hardware and > operating systems in general, but I also know it is not always practical or > appropriate. Isn't that something we should allow the invisible hand of the free market to drive? If customers believe there are alternatives that provide a lower overall cost of ownership by allowing software to be used over a longer lifetime, won't the customers make the decision to support those products with better ROI? And the responsive vendors succeed in the marketplace? Returning to your earlier analogy, is this like the government mandating seat belts, or more like them requiring a 5-year, 100,000 mile warranty? * If Windows keeps getting slower and slower in shipping new versions, won't that provide the longevity you want? It would be interesting to plot version against version and predict when Windows.NEXT will ship. It was five years between XP and Vista, three years between XP and 2000. I'm not sure how XPSP2 and 2003 could fit in there. How much longer should they go? -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
