I've never been a Microsoft knocker. You won't find any developer who
sings the praises of .NET and XP more than me, but I'm with the
Original Poster. I remember 98, 2000, and XP coming out, and none of
them were remotely as bad as Vista is. In fact I clearly remember
being immediately impressed by the stability and lack of bugs in 2000
and XP and I don't recall discovering any significant bugs or flaws in
those OS myself.
In Vista by contrast I'm already suffering from several problems that
appear to be bugs. And when I look round the groups I see an avalanche
of serious problems. The most worrying thing about this is the LACK of
pattern. There isn't any one area where you can say, "Yes, this needs
more work." Instead there appears to be a vast panoply of different
problems that affect different machines and users differently.
Solutions that work for one don't work for another. At some level the
filesystem, networking, and security model appear to be unmatched with
each other; in conflict rather than harmony. It isn't as if I'm doing
anything difficult, just very vanilla .NET2 programs.
Despite all that got cut out of it and the prolonged development cycle
Vista appears to be still too ambitious, too under-tested, and mainly
too clever for its own good. The impression that I am getting is that
of too many bugs, and too many overlapping sticking plasters applied
in the testing phase that are interfering with each other.
Tom.
Fed up .NET developer trying to ignore worries about the 3% of my
userbase who are running Vista.
