xfile said:
To be fair, Microsoft has to provide enough resources and "incentives" for
vendors to do so in the same way that Linux community has to do.
If you were the CEO of the vendor, why would you want to spend tremendous
efforts on doing so for the "old" hardware? Will you benefit from it?
Will you do things that only have costs but not benefits as a rational
business decision-maker?
Quite fair. There is "Some" incentive to cover older hardware since if
people go buy new they won't necessarily buy a brand that let them down
once already. However it is one thing to release an OS to manufacturers
for pre install (So the people enjoying some of the profit do the beta
testing and quite another to sell something in a box for ordinary
shoppers to buy that most likely won't work properly on their hardware.
This is unavoidable to some extent, but the fact that it was hyped to
death and will be disappointing to many makes this seem worse.
I think many will go for the ultimate version simply to get "The Best"
so the disappointment / annoyance factor will be even higher. What you
don't then need is someone endlessly repeating "It's your own fault for
not ensuring compatibility"
To some extent we are "Spoiled" by XP because it does things very well
and quite honestly I'd feel cheated if I bought the most expensive MS OS
ever only to find it caused me so much trouble. The attitude with many
here seems to be one of "Mine's okay so you must either have crap
equipment or be stupid or both. This is sad because it damages not only
Microsoft but the whole field of "Amateur" computing.