dzomlija <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:dzomlija.2zoxs3
@no-mx.forums.net:
> Sure, there are some rare instances where Vista hasn't performed for
> some people as it should have, but anyone that claims XP is better than
> Vista simply hasn't used Vista long enough to be able to make accurate
> comparisions.
That's a blanket statement also.
Here's the problem.....as far as comparing OS's, what is 'better' ? What
does 'better' actually mean ?
Everyone's got their own requirement's for what they do with their PC.
Security is a big issue generally. I myself have never had any problems,
security wise. I was hip to spyware/adware very early on before that became
a huge problem, and was able to steer clear.
My XP box has been rock-solid stable for years.. It started out with Win98,
and was _upgraded_ to XP shortly after it's release. Has had hardware
upgraded, a ton of s/w installed and un-installed. I ran no SP's up until a
year ago, and then after a catastrophic hard drive failure, I decided to up
to SP1. It hadn't even had a repair install up to that point. A few
individual security updates were applied over time, the ones I deemed
necessary....for me.
I don't know if you can get any better than that ?