I'm definitely not saying something that believe 100%, but...
This happened under Windows XP, too. My work desktop was new in 2002. I got it in 2003. By 2009, it was struggling to run a complement of PuTTY terminals, Outlook and Internet Explorer, along with whatever corporate "compliance" software that company demanded. By 2010, it was hopeless.
In moments of weakness, I have a sneaking feeling the Microsoft puts deliberate performance-wasters in, so that older hardware and/or OS versions just barely work, in order to nudge people to upgrade. Of course, Microsoft doesn't do this, as it would be objectively unethical, open them to civil suits and maybe even be illegal. As a citizen and a taxpayer, I know that market forces would prevent such dirty tricks, as it would cause customers to flow away from Windows and on to its many competitors in the free market.
2 comments
[ 57.1 ms ] story [ 44.3 ms ] threadThis happened under Windows XP, too. My work desktop was new in 2002. I got it in 2003. By 2009, it was struggling to run a complement of PuTTY terminals, Outlook and Internet Explorer, along with whatever corporate "compliance" software that company demanded. By 2010, it was hopeless.
In moments of weakness, I have a sneaking feeling the Microsoft puts deliberate performance-wasters in, so that older hardware and/or OS versions just barely work, in order to nudge people to upgrade. Of course, Microsoft doesn't do this, as it would be objectively unethical, open them to civil suits and maybe even be illegal. As a citizen and a taxpayer, I know that market forces would prevent such dirty tricks, as it would cause customers to flow away from Windows and on to its many competitors in the free market.
I have steadfastly resisted any 'upgrade' of the Windows 7 in my trusty 8-year-old Lenovo T410S.
Mind you, 98% of the time I am running Mint Linux flawlessly.