Operating system vendors *WISH* they had a model where your right to run the OS was timed, e.g. by the year, like the annual licenses are for big applications.
This is one of those circumstances where it could benefit the user as well -- you could continue to run an older version, as long as you kept your license fee up to date, and you'd be guaranteed support, etc.
But the model in play -- where you only pay Microsoft or Apple once for your license to run a given release of Windows or OS-X -- means that they not only WANT you to upgrade often, they have to FORCE you to upgrade often. That's their revenue stream.
Apple is more restrictive about running old versions -- they drop support for old versions fairly quickly. This is in part because with only 5-10% of the market, they don't have the resources to maintain support for long periods. (By contrast, MSFT will support XP until 2014 or so -- that's 13 years!)
Microsoft doesn't have that option. Their business customers would not tolerate a quick rate of OS upgrade because of the cost of testing custom apps, etc. for a new version. New releases break things, fact of life.
If Microsoft did not support old versions for a longer time than Apple, you'd see businesses dropping Windows and going to Mac at a higher rate than now.
You'll be forced to drop XP, but not for a few more years.
Actually, I think Microsoft’s approach going forward will be emulation, either lite or full-on. For example, Win 7 Pro 64 bit lets you run old programs with Windows 95 compatibility - that’s a 15 YEAR lifespan so far. Assuming that Windows 7 is supported for the same amount of time, we’re talking an OS supporting 30 year old software. It conceivable a person could work their entire life with a single OS and a single program.
I know that for some applications (like some hardware-centric 32 bit only programs I have) I use the XP virtual PC built-in to the OS, and it works perfectly. And for others, just running them in Windows XP or W2K compatibility mode is enough.
I suspect that is the future for Microsoft; dynamic emulation of older OSes depending upon how you choose to run a given program. With the horsepower of modern computers and OSes this becomes a viable option.
Actually, I could care less if the vendor supports the OS. As long as firewalls and anti-virus software stays up to date, I can put up with known problems. Heck, I still run Windows 2000 on one of my computers and see no need to upgrade. Only when other software outruns the operating system will upgrades be considered.
I just want a fast and reliable operating system as a single user. Of course business’s are different altogether...