Some here may argue that if it weren't for the constat new OS releases by MS, that replacing old computers wouldn't be necessary.
Umm, and to those that argue that I usually have to point out the issues involved with system degradation. Over time every system slows down and begins to perform poorly. There have been alot of people with alot of theories as to why this is, and the only thing I know is that after about three years of daily operation, a system needs to be replaced, regardless if it is useing XP or not. Just because there is no new OS released does not mean that systems do not reach EOL. It just means that the user will expect the new system to mirror the old in regards to personal data on the system (which is something that I often have to disabuse the user of).
And just because there is a new OS out does not mean that migrating NOW is a must.
Do I advise my supervisors to look into Vista? No. Vista today reminds me very much of working with XP in its early days. A lot of painful hours trying to get everything up and running and never being entirely succesful.
In time, after a Service Pack or two, Vista may live up to the promise it is currently making to home users. But running a system at home and at work are two different concepts with different needs and requirements. Vista works well at home almost all but the most serious gamers right now. On the job site, however, Vista sucks.
Technicians are not refusing Vista altogether, just waiting until the problems settle down.
Think of it in terms of new cars. You would normally wait and not buy a brand new car the first model year until after the redesign is tweaked and the problems worked out, right?
Same thing with Vista.
