4 ms·
The pile-on begins. I see Computerworld is now saying the iPhone 4 is Apple's version of Vista.
by mikecane 16y ago
The pile-on begins. I see Computerworld is now saying the iPhone 4 is Apple's version of Vista.
- billturner 16y agoIn the article, it's actually Microsoft's COO saying that, and not Computerworld: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9179164/Microsoft_exec_mocks_iPhone_4_dubs_it_Apple_s_Vista http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9179164/Microsoft_exe...
- megablast 16y agoDoes that mean a Microsoft COO is admitting that Vista is bad then? That is bigger news to me, than anything anyone at Microsoft can say about Apple or Google, they are competitors of course. And since Windows 7 is just a polished Vista, I am not sure what point he is trying to make?
- WalterGR 16y agoDoes that mean a Microsoft COO is admitting that Vista is bad then? That is bigger news to me Really? They did that years ago.[1] And since Windows 7 is just a polished Vista... That old chestnut, huh? Something like, "Windows 7 is a 64-bit tweak of a 32-bit extension of a 16-bit user interface for an 8-bit operating system for a 4-bit architecture from a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition." Wikipedia has a good article on new features in Windows 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 [1] EDIT: Reading comprehension failure on my part: somehow I missed the capital "COO" in the sentence. However, various Microsoft employees at various levels in the company have admitted Vista is bad.
- megablast 16y agoRead your list, did not see anything that could not be added by a SP into Vista. I see Windows 7 and Vista as no different to XP and 2000, and Windows ME and 98. Yes, there are new things in each OS, but they are not different enough to warrant being called a new OS.
- harshpotatoes 16y agoAnd linux kernel 2.4 is just a patch away from being 2.6, and os9 is just a patch away from being osX. Just because we like discussions here doesn't mean we have to argue for the sake of arguing.
- JBiserkov 16y agoWin2K: NT 5.0 WinXP: NT 5.1 Wista: NT 6.0 Seven: NT 6.1
- Niten 16y agoOh please. How good or bad Vista was is beside the point; the comparison is between how Vista and the iPhone 4 are perceived.
- cookiecaper 16y agoBut there wasn't really anything wrong with Vista. The rebellion against Vista was largely a psychological thing, users revolting because they _hate_ it any time anything changes. I don't think there was any "real" problem with Vista if you were running it on adequate hardware. I guess a big part of the problem was that Vista was getting installed on bottom-rung $300-$500 laptops and dragging everything down.
- lsc 16y agoyeah, but if the bottom wrung has 512-1GiB ram, if your OS doesn't run on the bottom wrung, I think it's legitimate to criticize you. If you want the OS alone to eat more than that, you had better bring some compelling features to compensate, and the perception, at least, was that vista did not bring those compelling features.
- evilduck 16y agoThat's if your bottom wrung hardware ever got driver support. I had an nForce mobo that would bluescreen anytime DirectSound was initialized. It didn't stop BSOD'ing until SP2, and by that point, I retired the computer.
- AlisdairO 16y agoThere's no good reason why Vista shouldn't have been able to run on 1GB ram laptops. It was so slow on my parents (new with vista) laptop that it made me want to scream using it. They upgraded to 2GB, and it was still pathetically slow until SP2 came out and fixed it. It works pretty decently now. Clearly, there was something wrong with Vista.