As for your third point, when XP was coming up to release and was released, although there was some resistance against change, there was also a lot of excitement. Great and excited magazine reviews and articles, lots of positive experiences and information hitting the web, people that had gone to XP saying how great it was, and it didn't take long until people realised XP was a good OS and moved to it.

It's not the same this time. There's not really been any excitement, people that have gone to Vista seem to be upgrading back to XP, there's an awful lot of negative comments and press, and there's not really any reason to go to Vista - people just dont want it.

While there are always people resistant to change, Vista has much more than that - its not that people dont want change, its that people dont want Vista!

I think one of the main problems is that for most people, Vista offers nothing more that anyone wants than XP. We're talking an operating system, and XP is a great operating system, and its main purpose is for running applications, and XP does that just fine.

Most people dont want an OS as a bundle of applications. Give us the OS, then let us choose what we want and put it on - like we do with XP.

People that upgrade from Vista to XP realise they lose nothing, and if there's anything in particular they really wanted, there's third party software that does it a lot better than Vista. However, what they gain is dramatic. Much faster response times, less demand on the CPU, so much less RAM usage, less DRM restrictions, less bloat and more features for cheaper to boot.

Is there really anything particularly worthwhile moving to Vista for? Usually the answer is no - and with that answer being no, might as well enjoy the benefits of a much faster and efficient, much more stable, much better supported, much more familiar and much more flexible operating system - hence why people want XP.

I was surprised there was no mention or link with Phorm in this article, given that Phorm which is being implemeneted by the 3 major ISPs in the UK is all about having targetted advertising.

The thing with Phorm is that it is implemented at ISP level, and all your web browsing goes through their controlled systems - you no longer have a direct internet connection, there's no opting out, and they know all your surfing. I don't know about you, but personally I find this quite scary and worrying, and don't see this as being great at all.

At least with targeted advertising on websites, you can opt out, but not with Phorm.

Althoug you're safe in America at the moment, if it takes off here, it may well be heading your way too. You may want to have a look at at http://www.badphorm.co.uk

Targeted advertising is definitely becoming something a lot of people oppose, at least at this level.

It should be noted, however, that most of the Windows threats these days all rely on the user too. They expect the user to download it, open it, confirm it, and then run it and let it keep running. Big threats which break in through exploits are getting much rarer unless you haven't updated for years.

The problem lies with people. Saying it's not a threat because it requires the user is significantly untrue these days. If someone wants to view something and thinks they need to install something to get it to work, they will do. I've even seen people downloading zipped viruses in emails, unzipping them, entering a password to extract the zip which was in the email, running the program, agreeing to let it run, permitting it through the firewall, and then wondering why their computer got infected.

While some people may not like the model, there's lots of people, myself included, that like the subscription based model. I make use of Napster, and it's great being able to explore the entire music library at my leisure paying only a small monthly fee. I can listen to music I might never have thought to have done, I can listen to music friends suggest and see if I like it just by putting in the name. I can explore through the categories, find music that is similar and listen to my hearts content. Then, what I really enjoy, I can pay to keep.

The two models aren't mutually exclusive - you can use the subscription to explore and find music you like (better than a limited preview) and buy what you like if you want access to it everywhere and burn it to a CD or put it on your media player (including ipods), or use the subscription for general listening when you fancy listening to some music at home and on your compatible media player (personally I love my creative zen vision, which is fully compatible with Napster).

Therefore, in my opinion, subscription services DO WORK - and they give a lot more freedom and flexibility than just buying music. Just because you don't want to use it, doesn't mean no one else does.

I don't see why you are arguing that competition is a bad thing - more competition tends to lead to lower prices and better services all around. Having just one service means they're fully in control and can do what they like, and usually the customers that lose out as a result.

Personally, I think it's more stupid to want a monopoly as opposed to different competitors striving to make their services better and more attractive to customers, but maybe that's just me.

If they're opening up to more people, not just iTunes users, and offering free content (people like free), I wouldn't say it's an overly bad idea. Watch what's been on recently for free and advertisement sponsored, or watch what has gone past and no longer available for a low price. The model seems to be working quite well here in the UK

From my experience, people that want mobile video are far more likely to be able to watch what they want, not just what is available on iTunes, watch it when they want, not just when it's released on iTunes, and not have to pay for it when it's been broadcast on TV for free, or they have the DVDs.

A simple TV tuner card or PVR or DVD rip and you can have all the TV you want, at no extra cost, on your mobile device, without having to deal with iTunes at all.

Why should you have to pay for a program that's been broadcast free? Might as well pay a one-off £20 investment or so to hook your TV up to your comuter and have all the TV programs you want in nice DRM-free files you can keep forever, use on your PC, network streaming TV boxes (such as the cheap MediaMVP) to watch on TV, or your mobile deviecs (not just Apple devices).

I don't know about in the states, but in the UK, the AppleTV doesn't seem to have taken off at all, and probably for good reason.

Most people already have STBs for cable or satellite, On Demand of TV series is getting good (On cable, you get loads of TV series completely free as well as Catchup TV for anything you've missed). The BBC iPlayer and 4OD services (which are similar to what NBC are offering) are available on both cable and on the internet so as to maximise people being able to watch.

Those that have a computer and want to watch it there can do so, those that want to link their computer up to a TV and watch can do so. Those that want to watch directly on their TV can do so. Hits pretty much every scenario

The system seems to work quite well in the UK, however. The BBC with it's iPlayer and Archive services (both advert free), Channel 4 with it's 4OD (4onDemand) service, and other channels to come.

It makes sense, if you broadcast the episodes free to view over the air, why should they not be free to view if you want to watch over the internet instead? Likewise, if you want to watch episodes that are no longer being shown, you'd have to buy a DVD or find another way, or alternatively pay to see the episodes.

By being a service available on the internet and doing it themselves, not only do they have more flexibility, but they can actually reach a lot more people - people not everyone likes or uses iTunes, I know many people that won't ever touch it.