When/How Do You Decide to Upgrade Your OS?

When Microsoft launches a new OS (or Ubuntu or Apple etc.), how do you determine if you need to update? Is it even based on need at all, are you that guy who just has to have the latest offering?

I base my upgrades on budget vs. need vs. want.

I started out using Win 95 in 1996, then I switched to Win 98se in 1999. 95 was getting long in the tooth, 98 had much better hardware support.

I used 98 till about 2003 when I updated to XP. That was really just because I'd been on the same OS for 4-5 years and wanted a change. It helped that XP was such a solid operating system and very worth the price.

I made the move to Vista early last year (purchased new laptop). I liked it so much that I got a system's builder copy for my desktop. Again, I'd been using my previous OS for 5 years and it was time for something new.

If it hadn't been for my student ELMS account, I expect I would have skipped Win 7 completely.

What's your story?

I had 3.1 wayyyyy back in the day, and in about '97 upgraded to Win 95. Before ya knew it, the pc was so outdated. Got an HP Celeron 400 with Win98 on it, then in about 2002, upgraded it to XP. Then I built another system and put my copy of XP on it and put 2k on the old one and let my boy use it. So...early 2009 comes and i'm sick of incompatibility on my kids system, so I took the plunge and Got Vista for this one, and put XP onto his.

I won't get to 7 unless I get a netbook/laptop or something(and that would kinda suck since most netbooks come with Win7 Starter...bleh). It'd be a waste of money to get yet another OS now. I could easily still be on XP if I didn't have 2 pcs here.

I base my decision on WANT, I want the newest.

Why live in the past?

24c said:

I base my decision on WANT, I want the newest.

Same here. The only OS I've been disappointed in was Vista [and I've had them all]. Windows 7 cured that though.

The only OS upgrade I've made that completely blew me away was going from Windows 2000, to XP-Pro SP2. With the addition of the Security Center, and all the extras, I was extremely impressed with that OS. In fact, I still like XP-Pro. It's a solid OS.

Its a matter of cost/benefit.

I tend to base this decision on the level of pain and disruption it's going to cause.


You see... these decisions are far easier for an individual who's actual hobby is the computer itself. It's new, lets give it a whirl!

But when you are talking about a productive enterprise that's running smoothly it's a little harder to make the decisions. There are hundreds of mini-decisions ... will current software work in the new OS, will people need mass hardware upgrades, how much is operator re-acclimation going to cost, how many service calls will it entail... and on and on.

Many corp. and SoHo setups can't afford to be down for any length of time (usually measured in minutes). The system disruption of changing over to new operating systems, learning new UIs, perhaps even new software can seriously hurt a major corporation and it can kill that little 5 man travel agency.

Any new OS that goes into that environment has to be a "drop in" fit (what we used to call "turn key") and it has to work from day 1 and keep right on working. Unlike a hobbiest where the fun is in finding and fixing, these outfits suffer horridly from even the simplest complications in their day... they aren't going to sit back and let me do a clean install or even tweak... they want their computer working NOW!

Companies like these are not only disinclined to update, many resist it right up to the moment a computer fails and the replacement comes with the new OS preinstalled. Heck I've got whole networks I care for that are still using Win2000... Their logic is sound... It's working... Leave it the he11 alone!

So, over the years I've developed this habit of weighing a new OS value on the mass outcry of human suffering I may have to endure...