On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:01:34 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>> Because it's a desirable feature, to many even if you don't
>> care either way.
>
>Not to 'many'. To a comparatively small few.

You might be surprised just how many people want the
performance boost that comes with newer hardware OR that
have a system failure and either buy new box or new board
and do not want to reinstall windows, customize it, or
install all their software 'n such all over again. In fact,
I suspect most people would find the ability to do that,
useful... far more useful than some of the so-called
features in XP.


>
>> Because what they "have" to allow is the
>> opposite of what they would allow, in a free market to
>> remain competitive.
>
>There is no 'market incentive' to provide features, at significant cost,

Well here we go again... I doubt it is a significant cost.
I suspect they know how and could do it right now if they
chose, and may have even tested it. They DID have to have
the basic functionality working in the first place just to
install the OS, too.

There is a market incentive. It is a very desirable
feature. They just didn't need to do it because they're not
competing with anyone else in the retail PC biz. Nobody
claimed that "all" users "need" it, but such is the case
with any marketable feature of (take your pick- any
product).


>that only a handful of people would even care about. And, just as it might
>be 'convenient' to a hand full of car 'enthusiasts' if automobiles came
>with a sufficiently sized engine compartment,

handful of enthusiasts? I take it you either don't remember
how roomy cars used to be under the hood, or don't do any
repairs yourself anymore. Regardless, with that space
reduction there was gain, a size and aerodynamics benefit.

>'self configuring' electrical
>systems, 'auto-fit' exhaust piping, 'universal' cooling, 'infinitely
>variable' transmission ratios, and built in mounts to hold every motor made
>so they can 'hot swap' a 'vette 454 for a Ford 289 in 10 minutes, it's
>ridiculously cost prohibitive.

.... if you choose to compare only ridiculously cost
prohibitive things, sure, but that is not the case with XP
being able to PNP a drive controller, for example, if/when
it can't find the OS boot drive.


>> They
>> would have the feature because without it the customer will
>> spend a minimum of 1/2 hour if not more (actually a LOT more
>> time if a person is prudent and makes system backups
>> inbetween the windows updates as they should've previously).
>> Their choice to cost customers time is clearly a disregard
>> for them.
>
>That is simply nonsense. It isn't done for the reason I just stated.

Nope, it is ludicrous to claim it's a cost issue with the
vast wealth they generated while simultaneously, removing
all competition from the market. They could give away
windows for free and still afford to do it.

>It
>would be an incredibly complex 'feature',

Not at all.

>costing significant time and
>money to implement (if even possible),

Don't be ridiculous. "if possible"?
If I had the source and a few dozen hours I'm sure I could
do it myself. What's a few dozen hours (actually far less
to a MS programmer already familiar with the code)?

> for a hand full of 'enthusiasts' who
>exchange motherboards, or the rare failure,

I could as easily claim the opposite, that there isn't
anyone who wouldn't find that feature desirable.

>and all to simply save an hour
>or so of time for those few.

You're quite wrong in presuming it would take most people
only an hour to install windows, drivers, reconfig it, patch
it, install applications, restore data backups, sync email,
etc, etc, etc. Not even close to an hour. We can't
automatically presume a repair install will suffice either,
because it won't always. The presumption of a person with a
very basic setup that would only take an hour, would also be
presuming that person was capable of the whole system setup.
Most users who can do it, also have configuration and
additions enough that an hour is not realistic.

>Not to mention it's doubtful it would even
>save time because the process of redetecting and installing everything
>would still need to take place.

It might be doubtful to you but it should take far less
time, not even considering reinstalling the patches.

>
>But then you'd bitch incessantly about the "software bloat" needed to
>support a 'feature' that perhaps 1 out of a thousand use once every 10 years.

incessantly?
If you say so, I don't recall but one thread ever, when the
sub-topic had already been brought up by another person.

>
>Actually, the capability exists. It's called a 'repair install'.

Actually that's the opposite of not reinstalling windows.