Linux Distros basically stay the same but with improvements and different version numbers. And very often with a new silly name like 'Dirty Deborah' or something.
But there are no fanfares, no marketing campaigns, they're just launched and the most significant improvements are hardware recognition.
All of which means bugger-all really but it made me wonder if Microsoft had made one original Operating system (let's just say Win 3.1 for the hell of it cos that was the first one with actual 'windows') and then supplied free upgrades from then until the present date would they still be financially buoyant?
And let's say they charged a straight £100.00 for a Microsft licence for a home user's system with 'free' updates for life.
Hmm, I just musing, really, don't really know what I'm talking about, lol
It's only worth using XP for two reasons:
1) You're desperately skint and can't afford £70.00 for Win 7.
2) Some older games.
Hardware has changed dramatically in the last nine years and OS's are built to support current hardware. Linux distros manage it for the most part and Win 7 has matured now to support the greater majority of available hardware.
Does XP still support all available hardware?
Oddly enough, seems it does, mostly.
So what's my conclusion?
I dunno
Win XP was, in perspective, Microsoft's greatest OS overall in it's history of OS's thus far.
But it's nine years old.
Win 7, to my mind, is superb but at only one year old has to gain a few more brownie points to usurp XP's reputation.
XP is nine years old, it's time to put it to bed.
Win 7 is very good indeed and in my opinion is easiest the best MS have come up with.
I wonder how many years Win 7 will be around? Another 9 years?
So, I is just prattling on, feel free to tell me to hush up
. Up until recently I was very happy using it on my laptop and saw no reason to upgrade for the sake of it.
.
