There was a bit in it that I totally disagreed with:
It's important to me not because I am an operating system fanboy, but mostly because I want the world to get the hell off Windows XP. A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Windows, of course, but given the fundamental inertia in most people's computing choices, the lack of a compelling Windows upgrade path is a dangerous thing.
Different definitions of "dangerous".
How is slow change dangerous to an ecosystem? It might be dangerous for itself, i.e., the Windows franchise, but the ecosystem seems to have not only survived, but thrived. Not only did Apple take total advantage of MS' lapse, but the Linux desktop looks better and better (typing this on Ubuntu). Within the Windows' desktop universe, there is a huge software library specific to XP, not just Windows. Tweaks, utilities, and documentation galore.
No comments:
Post a Comment