For over the last decade, software giant Microsoft has been releasing its renowned Windows operating systems to its consumers at a relatively constant rate. With clear market dominance, Microsoft’s Windows operating system line is clearly the consumer’s preferred choice of operating system over the likes of Apple’s Macintosh OS X as well as the Open Source platform, Linux. Dominance, however, does not brew through idleness. Consumers always want a better, more productive item that has a clear advantage over its predecessor. The manufacturers always want to sell different products to the consumers. To fend off its competition and to satiate the consumer’s desire for an easier, more useful product, Microsoft has been releasing newer versions of its famed OS. They, of course, bore the names of their release years or seemingly random and cryptic mix of acronyms.
And so? Don’t we all know that?
Well, Microsoft’s Windows operating system is a prime example of a regular update on a product through its lifecycle. Given the nature of the modern software and the changing technological environment under which it exists, the software itself has to evolve to keep pace. Or does it? When a product works, though, what’s the need for change? Furthermore, to what extent does a product (not necessarily computer software) need to improve over its predecessor in order to fully garner public adoption? And there is also, certainly, a learning curve associated with every software. When is it worth leaving a comfort zone to go for the "latest and the greatest?"
I think it’s worth looking at two very good examples of this concept. Obviously, Microsoft’s Windows operating system is one of them. However, on the hardware side, I think it’s worth looking at how the old, yet powerful Pentium Pro technology chips, were replaced by a less efficient Pentium 4 line.
Less than half a year ago, Microsoft released Windows Vista. Touted as an absolutely revolutionary operating system that is meant to change the way we work with a computer, Microsoft set out to convince the mass that the new guy in town, Windows Vista, was clearly (no pun intended) superior to its predecessor, the ageless Windows XP. Similar to Windows XP when it was displacing Windows 2000, its adoption was admittedly slow and while general widespread consensus seem to agree that Vista has numerous functionalities that are nice, an overwhelming majority of consumers stick with Windows XP. In fact, numerous mainstream computer manufacturers offer to load the Windows XP operating system instead of the newer Windows Vista operating system.
Vista, other than its sleeker "prettier" interface, offers numerous mainstream functionalities. These include increased security and encryption, a more efficient system, and a host of pre-loaded applications. A nice list of all the new features of Vista is available on Wikipedia. Scanning the list, over four-fifths of the applications are currently largely useless to most mainstream consumers. Does a normal computer user need the three-dimensional Aero interface? How about the native partitioning manager? Or the Windows Meeting Space program? Probably not, judging by the level of conformity current users has with current systems. Simply put, the current situation and level of functionality of Windows XP satiated the consumers to an extent that leaves little incentive for many to replace it. Surely, there were times in which an upgrade was blatantly necessary such as with Windows ME, but to uproot an already solid OS requires a tremendous amount of convincing. I’m by no means advocating a complete blockage of the new OS. However, Windows Vista has not reached that level quite yet, but as always, I’m sure that will change when computers are preloaded by default with Vista and or the necessities of the consumers evolve.
To many, a look at the software side clearly shows this concept of when to replace the older product. This, however, extends to any other product and in computer hardware, there are numerous great examples of what to look at. More specifically, Intel has made numerous attempts throughout the years to convince its consumers that its newer processor is better than the older one. Such rhetoric is simply true for some of the more recent releases seen as the Core 2 Duo lineup. However, this was not always the case.
After intensely developing the Pentium Pro architecture to the Pentium III level, Intel decided to push the clockspeed envelope even further by dumping the seemingly maxed out Pentium III and create a newer Pentium 4 line of processors. To many, the Pentium 4 seemed much faster than any of its predecessors and any of its rivaling processors from Advanced Micro Devices. Just look at the numbers. A 1.8 Ghz processor must be faster than a 1.2 Ghz chip. In a comparison test, however, it failed to live up to the hype. In fact, two subsequent releases of the Pentium 4 were needed in order to keep pace with its predecessor, the Pentium III. Buying into the clockspeed myth, numerous mainstream consumers purchased Pentium 4-based systems with hopes as high as the sky-high clockspeeds that the chips ran. However, with the advent of the Pentium-Pro derivative Core architecture, the Pentium 4 architecture (P7) is considered a small diversion on an otherwise successful P6-based chip line.
So to what end do you consider replacing what’s old with what’s new? How convincing does the new product have to be to uproot the old?
When is old, old? My Take:
I subscribe to the idea that you want to avoid upgrading as long as there is not a very clear need to do so. This threshold varies from person to person. If this lends perspective, I currently operate a two-and-a-half year old desktop with no intention of upgrading in the near future. Every game I play runs on it. Heck, when I decide to, I can even load Windows Vista onto it comfortably. Surely, it’s fun to play with the latest and greatest. But when a particular product, as a computer, is useful/needed for your everyday routine, it is nice to have what you know will work day in and day out. While, at times, it may be hard to determine absolute need admits a slough of advertisement and companies telling you that you must upgrade, it is important to keep perspective. New stuff is great. However, you need to know what you need. Don’t let a company tell you what you need. Buy (or rather don’t buy) based on necessity. Technology always evolves. Things get better. Unless you have very deep pockets, you will never be able to have the latest and the greatest all the time.
The PCMech.com weekly newsletter has been running strong for over 8 years. Sign up to get tech news, updates and exclusive content - right in your inbox. Also get (several) free gifts.
