Vista IS Half-Baked
Submitted by Tom on Sun, 05/04/2008 - 21:42.

Welcome aboard.

If you knew the development process of Vista, you would realize that it was likely doomed from the start. Two different teams, total scrap of 2 years work, then finally starting all over again - not a good way to start.

Comparing XP to Vista upgrade with the 98 to XP upgrade is not apples to apples - 98 (or actually ME) was the last of the OSs that were seeped in 16 bit code. XP was a newer version of windows 2000 which in itself was built on a much stronger 32-bit kernel. It actually WAS a significant improvement and worth the problems inherent in such a big step.

Vista, on the other hand is more like a 98 to ME upgrade. All of the truly important features such as WinFS were pulled during development, and what we really ended up with is basically XP with more security and less compatibility with hardware and software because of the sub-par development process of Vista.

Oh, and by the way, I have watched development of and used Microsoft OSs daily since DOS 3.3.

I'm happy if your Vista experience is good, and I really am way over the UI changes, but a year and half has gone by and there is still significant compatibility problems. Did you know that nVidia still has device driver problems? Lets not even go into the whole "Vista Capable" mess and the resulting internal letters lambasting Vista from Microsofts own executives.  I doubt we have heard the last of these letters either; more are to be released as a result of the class-action lawsuit.

I like change if it results in greater productivity, but change only for the sake of change is a waste of time and resources, of which you will need significantly more of to run Vista at the same performance level as an XP machine.

I call it the way I see it too, I just think my glasses may be sharper.  :)  Seriously, though,thanks for the comments! 

Reply