On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:45 PM, John Sessoms<jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > From: Thomas Bohn >> >> On Aug 8, 2009, at 1:16 PM, mike wilson wrote: >> >>> > "Toshiba recommends Windows Vista Ultimate" yet not one of the > >>> > netbooks uses it..... >> >> What's these "Windows" everybody talks about these days? Something to >> look through, something to eat? >> >> I would like to know, if Windows 95 had failed, how OS/2 would look like >> today. > > So would a lot of us. > > My own guess is it would look a lot like Linux does. > > Supposedly the next version of Windoze - Windoze 7 I believe - is supposed > to be a lot better than Vista. Of course, that's what they said about Vista. > > The main problem I have with Vista is I don't see any improvement in > performance over XP. In fact, in my view performance degraded with Vista. > > What I understood and knew how to do doesn't work anymore. And the new steps > I've had to learn take more work. What I used to be able to do in two steps > now takes three steps, PLUS I have to confirm numerous times before it will > actually do what I want it to do. > > All I see is changes introduced for no other reason than to make Vista > incompatible existing XP applications, so that if you were a Micro$oft shop > you had to "upgrade" everything, even though the "upgrade" added no new > functionality. > > Micro$soft is too impressed with their own cleverness. They somehow got an > idea into their head that if they hadn't come up with an idea, it wasn't > needed, and anyone who wanted to do something they didn't think of first had > to be actively thwarted. > > OTOH, most of what I really need to do to manage a computer I could > accomplish using Windoze 3.1's file manager. > > Hmmm ... looks like I got some time on my hands now. Anyone had success > running PhotoShop on a Linux box? Even if you're having to use some Windoze > compatibility mode. > > I might just give it a try. I've got a couple of computers I'm not actively > using right now that might be used for experiment. >
There's one major performance issue (ReadyBoost) and one major UI issue (UAC) with Vista. Both are easily disabled and after that Vista SP1 performs as well or better than XP. UAC is the major issue as it's simply fucking annoying, it adds no security as any idiot who clicked on something dumb will just click OK anyways. Note both are gone or at least minimized in Windows. 7. And that, along with a new set of UI changes (downgrades this time IMHO) is all that is different between Vista and 7. And of course many manufacturers are taking the 7 release as an opportunity to End-Of-Life hardware, so 7 is going to have most of Vista's major launch issue, a lack of drivers for older hardware. When it comes down to it, Vista had 3 problems at launch: 1. Poor hardware support at Launch (Windows 7 also ahs this, but not _quite_ as bad as Vista). This is totally not MS's fault as Vista beta's were available via MSDN long before launch. 2. Two bad decisions on MS's part (UAC and ReadyBoost). The latter does actually improve program launch speeds at the cost of slowing the whole system down. Both can be deactivated fairly easily. 3. People were mostly satisfied with XP. The reality was that the Vista launch was actually less rocky than the XP launch by a fair margin. But since Vista was not an obvious improvement over XP the way XP was over Me and most users were happy with XP, Vista very quickly got a nearly completely bogus rep as an awful OS, which for the most part it was better than XP. >From my (limited) experience with Windows 7, I have zero intention of upgrading to it until I'm forced to. The new Start Menu and Start Bar are annoying and the rest of the OS is simply Vista SP3. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
