There are two sides to every story. The Joe Bloggs the Consumer doesn't help things by encouraging the IT industry in the "race to the bottom", the consumer only ever wants the price point to go in one direction.
Of course they do. That is what has happened to all products - as they develop, the price goes down. That applies to IT as much as air travel.
That's why Apple maintain their high quality, and everyone else produces rubbish in their standard ranges (go up the price points, and of course you can find quality in the PC arena too).... most of the stuff you find in the shops or airport duty free is not worth touching with a bargepole.
I know many iphone users who would disagree vehemently with that, from screen fragility to the inability to replace batteries without an expensive trip to the repair shop. On the desktop front, I remember my first encounter with a Mac, which was used to design printed leaflets, the IT bod having been advised by a smooth saleman that an Apple could not be beaten for DTP work. Despite having a trained, dedicated user this machine caused 3-4 times as many support issues as the PCs around it, and was ditched when the dedicated user moved on.
Microsoft are NOT ripping off the consumer by making XP obsolete though ! They've given you more than enough notice .... they've brought out three operating systems in the intervening period.... they can't support everything for ever.
Not directly maybe. But by not providing modest and second user machines with an upgrade path, and not allowing an install over the top of the existing (forcing a back-up and format - and we all know how M$ back up processes have been, er, less than stable in the past), they as part of the industry forcing users to replace perfectly servicable hardware. The ONLY beneficiaries are the profits at the IT firms - it is not good for end users (cost), economies (investment money diverted into otherwise unnescessary replacement of equipment) or indeed the environment. That is abuse of an effective monopoly. Yes, I know there is Apple, Linux etc, but for most home users these are neither user friendly (Linux), or appropriate (Apple - perceived issues over running "mainstream" programs designed for Windows).
Many of these machines are in use because their users are cash strapped - elderly, young, unemployed, charities etc - and upgrading is out of their financial reach. Having enticed people in to use the IT, is there not a responsibility to ensure that even these "low value" users still have access? I think there is, but of course there are those who think sectors of society who, for whatever reason, are not "viable economic units" should be left to rot.
Drat. Just realised I posted in this idiotic thread again. Quiet Sunday I guess. Definitely the last time ever, I'm not coming back here.
You will - it's the scab you love to pick at....
