Ed, I’d buy your argument except for one thing: IE7.

As long as MS ties security fixes to only the newest OS, I don’t think your argument holds water.

A basic user who is only interested in web surfing and email, who’s Windows 98/2000 box serves his/her needs perfectly, cannot avail themselves of MS’s most secure browser, (hell, they can’t even use IE6SP2) unless they upgrade their OS to XP. Which in most cases will also require completely new hardware. Oh, and they can’t use MSAntiSpyware either.

Now, I fully understand it’s a stretch to want a 7 yr-old OS to be up to current security standards, but the precedent has been set. It’s not that MS can’t make these backwards compatible (hell, Giant’s antispyware that MS bought already worked with 98/2000) but they choose not to.

So what happens once Vista is out and MS makes another step forward in securing IE. And only makes it available for Vista?

Joe Blow XP user, on a basic level XP-capable machine, who doesn’t want to learn to find an alternate browser, (assuming he even knows they exist) is denied a secure machine because the only way to get it is a new OS, which will require new hardware. So he doesn’t upgrade. So he has massive problems with his machine. And becomes an attack vector for thousands of other users on the web.

What a lot of tech experts don’t seem to be taking into account is that, for the average user, the functionality of an 800mhz or 1ghz machine with 32 megs or so of integrated graphics is ALL they want or need in terms of capability. They don’t WANT to upgrade their hardware. They LOATH the idea of having to do so, especially if just because they need the security but none of the features of a new OS.

As your quoted passage points out – it is possible. Mac has been doing it some time. Many of their new releases are actually faster than the previous one.

I’m a power user and pro photographer. My hardware needs are dictated by the power required by my applications, not by my OS. But the general user has looong since passed giving a rat’s ass about whizzy 3D graphics and most of what Vista’s bringing. They’d be far, far happier with a new version of Windows that runs on existing hardware and fixes most of the egregious security flaws and UI faults of current versions, and costs $40 or $50 to upgrade.

I’m glad Microsoft continues to attempt to innovate in its software (and this definitely applies to Office too) but I really think its time to stop pretending this is of benefit to the general user. Joe Blow simply doesn’t care. It just gives him a huge load of headaches to deal with, until he can get back to securely using the same 6 or 8 basic functions for which he uses a computer.

I guess my point (assuming there is one?) can best be summed up in response to Aaron’s second-last sentence. Why the hell is Microsoft telling me what I need, instead of giving me what I need?

As for Ed’s original post, my PC is currently doing fine. I really hope that there’s worth upgrading to in hardware terms because I want Vista. However, Intel and AMD see to have stopped making processors and all that seems to be happening with graphics cards is more memory being added. With a couple of exceptions, a PC bought now wouldn’t feel much different to my 3 year old Dell. Thinking about the upgrades I’ve done before, 486 90Mhz -(3 years)> P2 300Mhz -(what will now be 5/6 years)> P4 2.5Ghz, I’ve at least doubled the processor speed. It doesn’t *feel* as though that will happen this time. It feels like processors just stopped at 3.8Ghz.
It’s not upgrading software that’s my current issue. It’s convincing myself that the numbers are worth it.

Good points. I’ve complained about some of the same issues in the past. I think Microsoft has unjustifiably left some users behind on some key security improvements.

But there is a logic behind it. Windows 9X is inherently insecure. There’s nothing you can do to make it safe or reliable. If you try, you end up with Windows Me. Windows XP and Vista have cores that are inherently securable. So Microsoft’s insistence that they will deliver some improvements for XP and not for 9X is logical for architectural reasons.

IE7 will indeed be available for XP. It’s in beta right now. There will be differences between the feature sets of the XP and Vista versions, but those differences will be tied to the feature sets of the two platforms. The primary difference will be that IE7 for Windows Vista will support a low-rights mode that can’t be implemented in XP because the OS doesn’t support it.

Why did MS do this? One can only speculate but I would imagine that they ran into a brick wall where they would have had to compromise something that they were not willing to compromise.

Mark

I’ve recently spent time in a couple of Apple stores and overheard PC users weighing whether to make the leap. Anecdotally, their primary complaints are security, usability and compatability. When I’ve worked with OS X, I’ve been extremely impressed by its intuitiveness and speed. XP by comparison feels archaic. Vista can’t arrive soon enough.

There’s an interesting discussion over on Ed Bott’s blog on Windows Vista and the hardware requirements needed to run Windows Vista.
The bottom line as I see it is that if you have a PC more than a couple of years old then you should thin…