<<Why is it that Microsoft's release of Vista and Windows 7 require people to upgrade almost every 6months?>>
Well...I would take issue with your contention.
XP has existed for ten years...which is a very long time for an O/S to endure. XP is able to run on some very old systems, systems that existed long before XP debuted.
The changes in technology since the inception of XP...have been minimally made requirements in Vista and Win 7, IMO. The problem for some users is that they want older systems...to be able to adapt to O/Ses that are somewhat different from Win 9x and XP.
Minimal requirements to run Vista (per MS): http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows...em-requirements
Looking at those, I don't see anything that I think is unreasonable in 2007 or so, when Vista debuted. Considering the price and availability of hardware which existed then, as opposed to 2001...I don't see an unfair burden imposed on anyone, least of all anyone buying a new computer.
Minimal requirement to run Win 7: http://windows.microsoft.com/systemrequirements
I draw the same conclusions as I did for Vista.
Actually...the only users who play the "let's buy some new hardware" game...are primarily either gamers or enthusiasts and the hardware market is squarely aimed at them.
I don't expect computer parts I acquired 5 years ago (or more) to be able to run Win 7...but they do. I guess that I think 5 years is long enough for any user to feel like he/she has gotten their money's worth out of that hardware...and to take a look around at the changes which have taken place which result in faster, better systems.
I see the complaint that you made often enough...I just don't think that it's a valid complaint of any sort, with any real substance behind it...based on the changes in hardware which have taken place over the years.
I started with Win 95 and Pentium 166 processor way back when...today's hardware and O/Ses are significantly better, faster, and cost much less than such in that era. I think that this has been a significant trend and will probably continue to be so.
Through all those versions of Windows...I have never once thought that I needed new components to run the O/S efficiently. I have acquired newer components solely based on my whims for such, based on price and availability at what I consider "reasonable price" for value.
Computers are generally covered by warranty for 1 year...in the corporate world, they probably receive a 3-year life (for purposes of depreciation, writing them off as having no value).
I don't think that a user who has a system older than 5 years...has a valid complaint about "having to upgrade hardware" in order to run new versions of Windows which come forth...ever so slowly, IMO.
Just the view from someone who is just an average user with limited monetary resources...and who finds that some allegations/opinions that people may hold...need to be examined.