> Would you buy a car in 2006 knowing you couldn't get get parts and a
> tune-up in 2008?

Not a good analogy. Unlike a car, software is just bits. Bits never wear
out. I mean, seriously, you could go into your attic and find that old copy
of Windows 3.11 and install it on your current machine.

It will have exactly the same strengths and weaknesses, bugs and
shortcomings as it had when you put it in the attic ten years ago. It never
needs "parts" or a "tune-up" because it isn't mechanical and it can't wear
out. It's just bits.

I repeat: LOTS of people use software which is YEARS out of date and totally
unsupported - in some cases the vendor has disappeared. But guess what? It
works exactly like it always did (including with the same bugs it always
had).

That will be true for XP, too. The only thing that could render XP unusable
is if there were a major rethink of PC hardware. Until then, it will just
work. It doesn't NEED ongoing support to keep "just working".

I repeat: I honestly can't see any LOGICAL reason why MS shouldn't let you
continue buying XP indefinitely, PROVIDED the EULA is modified to say
"support ceases in 2009/2014, so caveat emptor". Then it is perfectly clear
to the customer exactly what they are buying.

In many ways, it's just like buying a new television with a two year
guarantee. In effect, the contract with the buyer is that the manufacturer
will support it against failure for two years. After that they wash their
hands of it. If it breaks, it's the customer's problem. MS could do
exactly the same with XP.

And as I said, if it's priced the same as Vista then MS has got your money
either way. Why should they care whether it's for an XP license or a Vista
license?

SteveT