3 ms·
What a ridiculous article. So there was negativity about XP that turned out to be wrong. What about the negativity about Vista that turned out to be right? And
by azakai 14y ago
What a ridiculous article. So there was negativity about XP that turned out to be wrong. What about the negativity about Vista that turned out to be right?
And how about considering each case on its own merits? Even aside from the product itself which changes, the competitive landscape is nowhere near what it was in XP or Vista days. A failure (Vista) back then was a minor inconvenience. A failure today would be different.
- nilved 14y agoIn fairness the negativity of Vista was also wrong.
- numo16 14y agoAgreed, having used Vista from release to Win 7 release, I never seemed to see the stability issues that so many seemed to be reporting. It made me wonder if people were just trying to work with ridiculously outdated hardware and software.
- gizmo686 14y agoThe negativity about vista was largely technical (it was unstable), and was adressed in SP1. We can also look at gnome 2, gnome 3, and unity for other examples of horrific updates that went smoothly.
- wlesieutre 14y agoMost of the negativity about Vista was related to changes that were a good thing in the long run, but didn't have 3rd party support (updated drivers) out of the gate. SP1 fixed some problems, but in my opinion the bigger reason for SP1 being reliable was that the ecosystem had gotten its act together. Windows 8 might not have a lot of native metro apps in their store yet, but at least everything works properly. Fewer companies have the option of screwing it up out of laziness.
- BruceIV 14y agoA lot of the Metro apps are a bit broken (even the Microsoft-provided ones) - a big problem is them trying to go to websites that have moved since whenever they were released.