[zeugma]

Again no, the stategy is to release a new OS every five years. That's in response to customer complaints that the release cycle was too fast. A 2006 release for Vista is in line with that since XP released in 2001. Either way, you'd complain.

 Really? I seem to remember a major push by Microsoft in 1991 to get folks to sign up for a program called "software assurance",  designed as a way to amortize the costs of future software and OS upgrades, which was based largely on the premise of a 3 year replacement cycle.

The prime feature of this program is the elimination of software upgrades, in favor of something Microsoft calls "Software Assurance." Under Software Assurance, you can pay about twice as much as the normal cost of a license, to buy the right to install any upgrades for the next two to three calendar years.

From a July 23,2002 article linked here.

 So, I guess when they are 3 years behind schedule, they just claim that it was a 5 year schedul all along?

Since I don't own any Microsoft products, you can consider my "complaining" to be a public service for all the poor bastards who've been suckered into them because they don't know any better.

[Golden Eagle]

I seem to remember a major push by Microsoft in 1991 to get folks to sign up for a program called "software assurance"...

LMAO, sure you do!

[Doohickey]

You can still purchase SA, but you're purposely missing the point. How much of your day do you spend roiling in anger against a company that employs about 60,000 Americans? I hope you're not losing much sleep.