That is a tough question. I think there is a need to support older products. There are still many people who use those products. They maybe either can’t afford something newer or the product still works for the application they use it for. As far as code for older browsers goes, it would depend as well. Who is your target with the web site, is that market share relevant, etc.

The same rule generally applies; you’d have to buy an upgrade from MS to update to a new system (or buy a new system).

I’m not sure what the support rate is in OSX, but it’s pretty good. OSX was released in 2001; I had a system running their second release (Panther) up until last week; it was fully supported and ran great. It got roughly as much attention from Apple as the newer ones (measured by a very rough estimation of how many software updates came out for it.)

On another note: how long should a company support it’s older products? Supporting old systems is nice to the user but inhibits innovation. Take web browsers; Microsoft still supports IE 5.5. That browser doesn’t support the W3 Standards, is insecure, and is a nightmare to code for. Same goes, to a lesser extent, for IE 6. Keeping those browsers around means that developers need to (a) forget about using new technologies and innovations and keep coding in the old ways, (b) fork their development and maintain old and new site or (c) put up a page that encourages the user to upgrade and either block them from the site or allow them to continue at their own risk.

The argument can be made that supporting old products is good for the user community, but it also works against them by not allowing people who distribute products for those systems to innovate and leverage the latest technologies. It’s not a clear choice, that’s for sure.

Yes but that would mean then you would either have to buy a new system or a new OS every few years. How much support does Apple offer those 7 year old OS’s?

That being true, it’s still and apples-to-apples (excuse me) comparison; you also get OSX bundled with the hardware when you buy and Apple. The delta is still the purchase price itself.

Just because the OS’s get bundled with the systems doesn’t mean they are not paid for.

@kosh:

The Shit Brown ones were the DOS-Based, Windows 95 and 98; Microsoft’s worst moment for sure. They can’t be compared to Windows NT, 2000, or XP since they were a completely different subsystem.

Apple is pig-headed about a lot of issues (for example, not releasing the SDK for the iPhone/iPod Touch until next month) but their pricing for the operating systems is not one of them. If you feel that charging $150 for their full operating system is bad, it’s probably because you’ve never actually paid for a copy of Windows.

You didn’t remember correctly. I had a Windows 98 and upgraded to Windows 2000. That PC is still up and running without any problems. I also have another 2000 machine with no issues. 3rd one is an XP.

I never said having a faster system 7 years after release of XP was groundbreaking. It is a upgrade to be sure. Which by the way I will not have to pay for. Apple makes releases every few years and makes you pay for them. Just one of the many ways they stick it to the suckers who buy into the hype. Let me guess you probably have some credit at the Apple store for buying an iPhone when it was released. Not that Microsoft doesn’t have times when they try to overcharge if they can. They are companies trying to make a buck, but the way Apple is doing things right now frightens me. I see them worse than Microsoft right now. Microsoft is at least under the microscope with all the antitrust issues. I see Apple following that road sometime soon and look forward to that day.

If you read your previous post you stated previous versions were more stable than the newer ones. So are you saying the newer versions are somehow worse than those “Shit Brown” ones?

I can appreciate your distaste for Windows. Every user has different experiences. You are one of the many “vocal” ones who have had bad experiences. I am one with good experiences and am speaking out. It is usually the bad experiences you hear about. Why would someone talk about something working unless they feel like they are being attacked about that belief? Regardless of your “experience” as you call it, I may have just as much, but in other areas.

@kosh:

If I remember correctly, you upgraded from Windows 95 and 98. XP is definitely an improvement over those, but at that point you’re talking about different shades of “Shit Brown”.

As for SP3; provided the rumors are true and it really is faster and more stable than SP2 (which I’ve also heard), then what does that mean? XP was released in 2001; a service pack that “makes it stable” 7 years after the fact is hardly groundbreaking.

As for the blue screen of death, it never happened in 3.54 and has been happening more and more ever since. In Windows 95 and 98, it was a daily occurrence, which is why that platform was abandoned entirely. My Vista box doesn’t blue screen anymore, that’s true. It does, on the other hand, automatically shut down and reboot “In order to protect my hardware from damage” – which is the same thing as the Blue Screen with a different error message (again, different shades of “Shit Brown”).

Apple’s latest release has had people upset with visual components more than stability issues. There was an issue with a graphics card in iMacs which caused some trouble, but that was a hardware problem, not software. There were problems with Parallels on Tiger, but, again, not Apple’s bug. Apple has released several updates to Tiger, but I’ve been on Tiger full time since its release and have had no direct problems with it. Completely different story compared to Vista, which has been out for much longer and is still less stable.

Ultimately, while there are obviously problems with both systems, I see no evidence of the same types of behavior from Apple as I see from Microsoft. It’s like the difference between “W” Bush and Billy Clinton; while both have issues, one’s a cowboy and one’s not.

Also note that I’m speaking primarily about my personal eXPerience (sorry, had to) and not as much about what is being reported. I run computers pretty hard, and am pretty unwilling to compromise when it comes to how I want things set up and working. Someone who plugs the computer in and just surfs the web will likely have less trouble than someone who is building satellite guidance software. (Let’s hope that person isn’t running windows.)

All this aside, Apple’s releases for Windows – iTunes and Safari – have admittedly been much worse than their OS X versions.

Apple is getting into the same problem as Microsoft. It seems to be a function of the size of the company and the number of areas they get into.
As far as stability goes I disagree with you. My XP system has had far less problems than any of my previous ones. Remember blue screens of death? I have never seen one on my XP system. Also according to reports I have read (take with a grain of salt) XP’s next service pack is more stable and much faster as well.

@kosh:

Hatching a strategy based on producing “buzz” through poor public opinion of their products is just the kind of crazy Microsoft might buy into.

I love it.

They’re definitely too big, but the bigger problem is – in my opinion – that they’re too unfocused. They have put a computer in nearly every household in American, which is amazing. But the quality of their products and level of innovation at this stage is disappointing. Windows NT 3.54 was better than 4.0 was better than Windows 2000 was better than Windows XP Professional was better than Vista. (By “better”, I mean more stable – not more features.)

According to general design principles, a system needs to function and be stable before it can begin to enable a user to use it in order to obtain higher system needs, such as creativity. Microsoft seems to add new functionality rather than stabilize the existing system, thereby effectively preventing users from really using the system to it’s full capacity. That’s where their products become frustrating.

Maybe the “mistakes” they make are a ploy to get people to talk about them more. More likely at this point it is because of the size of the company. Sometimes a business can be too big.

I think something more like damn Microsoft would be more appropriate.

@room34:

Wow. You just blew my mind, man!

Given Microsoft’s ubiquity in all realms of society using computers (which is, these days, all realms of society), its prominent role in the economic vitality of the Seattle area, and its deeply entrenched position as a fundamental part of your ability to purchase all of those bottles of wine that you drank, I think you can blame them on some level.

Sure, Microsoft didn’t design the recycling bins, but you probably wouldn’t have been pushing the recycling bin at that moment in time without them.

A sobering thought.