Comments & Opinions
Now, this is complex, so let's try to put all the dots on the 'i's.
Winodws 8 was released in 2013, so it is getting close to 5 years old, 7 is (obvously) older and it is getting closer to 9 years old. Two releases of an OS that are very similar but aimed at 2 different worlds, while 7 was meant to be an upgrade to remove the orrors of Vista from the minds of the general public, 8 was more oriented towards the tablet market.
That Microsoft didn't had so much success win he tablets segment is a known fact, that segment of the market is split between Apple and Android, everybody else get some leftover crumb, Microsoft recognized that and decided to move the resources towards a more "general purpose" OS that is not just for tablet.
So, why stop to provide upgrades to 7 and 8 when the processor (so the hardware) is last generation? First of all, what does it means to have a 5/9 years old OS on a machine that has been assembled in the last year? It means that an OLD pc has been updated with a new processor, and motherboard, RAM, chipset and probably a load of other parts... But not the hard disk? Ok, there are lot of peoples out there that want to keep using their old softwares and re-install everyting sometimes is not an option but... Microsoft offered an upgrade to 10 for free for a while... so why not upgrade when it was for free?
The usual excuses "I don't like it", "it's instable", "I don't trust it" etc. etc.
I understand if a company has 300 users and if 300 PCs goes ka-boom at once you're in the shit, and this is one of the reasons why we still have companies working with 15 years old PCs and systems (and then we complaints about 10 years old exploit and virused around), but this is not the case for private users.
Persoally, I noticed a decise switch in direction from Microsoft since 2005: more attention to the quality of the software, more focus on the testing, manufacturers that want to distribute their drivers thorugh Microsoft channels needs to pass scrutiny. We are still using the fancy GUI, but increasingly if you want to do lot of stuff quickly the documentation points you towards the console and command line interface. That's great from a system administration point of view.
After 15 years on Linux, since a couple of years I've been back on Windows, mostly because I was quite tired of the immense fragmentation in the linux world, so when trying to get something to work it was always a struggle. Sometimes I just need to do my job and don't care about the details. Well, I was pleasantly surprised by the improvement in term of scripting support and functionality of the new Windows. And when I got the option to jump to 10 for free, I toke it. And it wasn't a problem at all.s
So... Why stay on an old OS but replace the hardware? I don't see a reason. Sure, there could be specific case, but by and large, it doesn't make any sense.
And why stop updates on new processors? That's simple: Microsoft wants to keep on building on a NEW system and keep maintaining three different environments doesn't make much sense from a logistical (and budgetary) point of view. The answer is to "push" people to switch over. On the other hand, you spent $1000+ for a new processor and don't want to pay $200 on the OS that has to run it? Sometimes the software is more important than the hardware.
This site is made by me with blood, sweat and gunpowder, if you want to republish or redistribute any part of it, please drop me (or the author of the article if is not me) a mail.
This site was composed with VIM, now is composed with VIM and the (in)famous CMS FdT.
This site isn't optimized for vision with any specific browser, nor
it requires special fonts or resolution.
You're free to see it as you wish.