Text 38792, 70 rader
Skriven 2007-11-02 18:45:34 av Alan Zisman (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 38783 av TOM WALKER (1:123/140)
Ärende: XP or Vista?
====================
In article <39896$WIN95@JamNNTPd>,
 "TOM WALKER -> CHARLES SCAGLIONE" <1:123/140> wrote:

 CS>> I wonder if anyone has statistics on how well Vista is selling and the
 TW> numbe
 CS>> of people who have chosen to have XP installed vs Vista when buying a new
 TW> PC
 CS>> But I would think the average person buying a new PC would want the
latest
 TW> O
 CS>> installed or not question which OS it came with.

 CS>> Lately I've been reading and hearing negative things about Vista.  Every
 TW> MS
 CS>> operating system has received some bad press after its release, but it
 TW> seems
 CS>> more so for Vista.

 TW> I don't recal any MS Operating system with as much negitive press,
 TW> Ignoring MS Bob, since Windows ver 1!! That was without doubt the wrost
 TW> OS of all time.

I'm not that down on Vista... after setting up my Dell laptop to
triple-boot between XP Home (which came with it), Vista, and Ubuntu, I
ended up redoing it-- and dropping XP.

Vista runs fine (and quickly) on this 15-month old laptop (with 2 GB of
RAM)... and does everything that I need it to do.

Yes, the UAC notifications happen too often-- and require too many
approvals. (And yes, I know how to turn it off, but haven't). And there
are too many instances where MS seems to have (in my opinion) made
changes for no apparent reasons-- such as renaming "Add/Remove Programs"
to "Programs and Features" (or something).

On the other hand, I don't really see anything dramatic that it provides
that wasn't already being done reasonably well by some combination of XP
SP2 and free or inexpensive 3rd-party software.

I suspect that much of the negative commentary is due mostly to that--
it's not that is bad, but that given the 5 1/2 years lapse between XP
and Vista, people were expecting dramatic improvements-- and Vista's
improvements (outside of CPU cycle-eating eye candy) are subtle at best.
Inclusion of IE7, WMP11, and WIndows Defender are not worth much when
all are freely downloadable onto XP systems (and many may prefer
Firefox, iTunes, and some other anti-spyware program). Including
Vista-only photo album and DVD-players similarly offers little perceived
value when most XP users already have other software that provides
similar functionality.

It's not that Vista is bad, it's just not enough of a slam-dunk
improvement over XP.

Over a similar time period (2001 to 2007), Apple released 6 major
versions of OS X, with real improvements in productivity and even in
performance. (Part of this, of course, is because OS X 10.0 was very
slow and missing major functionality such as scanner support). Over the
same period of time, Debian-based Linux evolved even more-- anyone
interested is welcome to try installing, say, Corel Linux (from 2000)
and comparing it to a recent Ubuntu release. Ubuntu, over the past 3
years (or so) has been releasing a new version every 6 months or so...
while most users don't want to upgrade their OS twice a year, it
suggests a series of on-going improvements...

-- 
- email: alan (at) zisman (dot) ca
- website: http://www.zisman.ca

--- MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)