|
|
| Re: Windows (1411156) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Windows |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Oct 3 18:16:12 2016, in response to Re: Windows, posted by MR RT on Mon Oct 3 18:05:58 2016. That part actually makes some sense: Maintaining multiple legacy versions of Windows which each have completely different code bases for security issues is an expensive proposition. What's written for one version doesn't apply to the others, and keeping them in sync and updated has been expensive. Microsoft really wants to get it all down to maintaining just one version and this will eventually get them there.Folks wouldn't be inclined to upgrade just for the sake of making it easier for Microsoft, so this solution probably ended up being cheaper than any of the alternatives. You still need a legitimate copy (or at least one MARKED as such) to upgrade, plus it has the advantage of also encouraging people with older machines that were not compatible to buy new ones, and the Windows tax on new machines never went away, so there's revenue there. I for one though am grateful that I don't have to endure Windows or Linux. Piped off that ship back when Vista festered. :) |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|