[Petronski]

It's a Microsoft - Intel conspiracy and the consumer is the loser:

Intel fights to make constantly faster and more powerful processors to make our software run better.
Microsoft sees newer/faster processors as machines with extra cycles that need to be exploited.

The result is lardware like XP, which makes ludicrously fast computer systems seem pedestrian.

Windows completely fulfilled the 'must-have' computer feature set with windows 98SE, and made it rock stable with Win2000. Sorry, no more upgrade money from me.

[Mark]

Since Palladium also makes it easier for Microsoft to track users and locate illegal copies of its software,...

Why can't we just give them copies of the keys to our houses?

[Terpfen]

Instead of wiggling windows, can they just make the damn thing stop crashing? Just use Linux and build up on that or something.

[Myrddin]

I'm happy with Windows 2000. I've seen no compelling need to go with XP. Nothing in the Longhorn announcement is particularly compelling either. The new filesystem will take a few releases to be stable. I would wait until the 3rd party vendors have caught up on virus software, defrag and backup before making the transition.

[Timesink]

The world's largest software maker is betting that users will be ready to upgrade within the next couple of years as personal computers become more powerful, faster and affordable.

That's a damn stupid bet given that we've already reached the point where most users simply don't need the extra power, and certainly won't pay more to get it ... and the "faster" computers will of course remain more expensive. Only about 50-60% of the people I know ever even upgraded to XP. Why would they jump to Longhorn? Especially when the biggest "benefit" will be eye candy? Translucent windows! Whee! I know that's why I upgraded to Mac OS X, so I could play with the opacity of the windows.

And all these points are nothing when compared to Palladium, the Mother of All Privacy Violators. Once the public gets wind of that, MS is going to have a PR nightmare on its hands.

[Izzy Dunne]

The individual windows in Longhorn will be semi-translucent, making it possible to discern the contents of one window hidden behind another.

Wow Windows 2005 has features of Macintosh 2001 !
Microsoft is shortening their "design" cycle !

[eno_]

If it's just Palladium plus a knock off of the OS X desktop, Microsoft is going to enter an era of market share erosion.

[sackofcatfood]

Well, well, Microsoft is finally catching up to Linux with a journaled file system. Too bad they're so far behind in everything else. . .

[Timesink]

Bloatware! Spyware! Eveningvear! ping!

[Gforce11]

Eh, why can't they have Palladium? It is after all their OS...they own it..and they can do whatever they want to it. If you guys don't like the privacy thing or something just don't upgrade.

Also you'd be surprised at how many people have OLD Pcs running 9.x/2000. Those are the people that will be upgrading their hardware as well as the new OS.

[reg45]

The main improvement is that Longhorn will be a 64bit OS rather than a 32bit OS.

[Paleo Conservative]

Upgraded to Windows XP (news - web sites) yet? If not, you might miss your chance, because Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news)is already working on the newest version of its operating system, code-named Longhorn, due for release in 2005.

If you were already running Windows 2K there's little reason to upgrade. If you were running Windows NT 4, you probably lacked the hardware to run XP. If you were running Windows 98 or Windows ME on a CPU faster than 700 Mhz you should have gotten your computer with Windows 2K instead. Windows XP likes newer hardware. I would say at least 1 Ghz preferably 2 Ghz. The only computers that are really candidates for upgrades to Windows XP are ones that originally should have been loaded with Windows 2K instead of Windows 98 or ME at the factory.

[oceanview]

this attempt to move their users onto totally secure hardware, full DRM (that they own), spyware, no ability to buy 3rd party upgrades because of the signed driver requirements, will be what breaks them. China is going to take over the PC hardware market, building non pre-installed OS machines (WalMart sells them today). Hang onto your set of Win2000 CDs to load them with!

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[Cicero]

I don't know what's to complain about. Every new operating system since Windows 2.0 has been an improvement over its predecessor, with the sole exception of WinME. Win98 was better than Win95. Win98SE was a further improvement. Win 2000 was terrific. And I find WinXP slightly preferable to Win 2000. The same has been true of Internet Explorer upgrades.

[snooker]

Wonder when this joke ends.

Upgrade this upgrade that. Bloat makes for the need for you guessed it, upgrade that computer so it will run the latest upgraded windows which still crashes like the previous upgrade.

I just got my Win2003 server. And I have to sat it sure looks like it is worth all of the $4000 for the base version. $4k. Red Hat9 $69 and no additional charges for more users, no license spys. Just works.

sigh

[Centurion2000]

bump

[liberalnot]

i got xp the day it came out, oct. 17, 2001, if i remember correctly, because office depot gave me $20.00, $79.00 for the upgrade.

i've had lots of problems, but each time xp asks permission to report them to bill gates and i say yes, and later a patch arrives.

where's freeper bush2000? he's a microsoft employee.

[error99]

The article starts with this:
"...the world's largest software maker is betting that users will be ready to upgrade within the next couple of years as personal computers become more powerful, faster and affordable..."
- -
And ends with this:
"...What this means is that the new software will most likely require new hardware or upgrades to work well. PC Makers welcome the opportunity to make new sales, but users are becoming increasingly reluctant to buy new hardware to go along with software every few years..."
- - -
So which is it?
Do changes in hardware cause the need for new software?
Or do changes in software cause the need for new hardware?
Whichever it is, for users to have to upgrade computers (hardware AND software) every few years sure does get expensive.

[flamefront]

And now MS to circle in for the kill after previously SCO threatened all linux distros -

SCO to License Unix to Microsoft