I
iacy
My personal experience with SP1, which jibes with most objective tests I
have read, is that SP1 is the biggest non-event since Vista itself.
Users are not going to find tangible changes in terms of speed and
usability.
What is wrong with Microsoft?
The comparison is not entirely inapt: Vista is Microsoft's Iraq. They have
the power to keep pushing a misbegotten misconception, and could change
things, but they don't. Even after a year Microsoft still blames peripheral
makers for not coming up with stable or fully functional Vista drivers. This
is like Bush blaming France for his failures in Iraq.
Most people like me who dislike Vista do not hate Microsoft and understand
how difficult it is to create an OS that will work under a wide variety of
uncontrolled and unpredictable hardware and software configurations.
Microsoft was on target with the 9x versions (even ME) and really had
something with XP. We all realize that Microsoft does not enjoy the monopoly
control over hardware and software that Apple does (and somehow escapes
government review).
Despite the marketing and technical success of XP Microsoft released Vista
to universal bad reviews and continues to pretend it is a premier product.
No amount of bluster from Microsoft can hide the fact that Vista is a
significant step backward from XP in terms of speed, compatibility,
usability and stability. Increased use of Vista is simply due to Microsoft
pushing it onto computers purchased at retail. That reflects Microsoft's
clout, and the ongoing expansion/replacement cycle of SOHO computers, but
not the success of Vista.
Vista is still a corporate no show, non-starter. For example, what OS do you
see on the computer screens in the background of all the cable news
networks? Hint: it isn't Vista.
It boggles the mind.
Bill Gates, already a historical figure--the Henry Ford of computing,
retires with an Edsel as his legacy. I would think he would want something
better.
have read, is that SP1 is the biggest non-event since Vista itself.
Users are not going to find tangible changes in terms of speed and
usability.
What is wrong with Microsoft?
The comparison is not entirely inapt: Vista is Microsoft's Iraq. They have
the power to keep pushing a misbegotten misconception, and could change
things, but they don't. Even after a year Microsoft still blames peripheral
makers for not coming up with stable or fully functional Vista drivers. This
is like Bush blaming France for his failures in Iraq.
Most people like me who dislike Vista do not hate Microsoft and understand
how difficult it is to create an OS that will work under a wide variety of
uncontrolled and unpredictable hardware and software configurations.
Microsoft was on target with the 9x versions (even ME) and really had
something with XP. We all realize that Microsoft does not enjoy the monopoly
control over hardware and software that Apple does (and somehow escapes
government review).
Despite the marketing and technical success of XP Microsoft released Vista
to universal bad reviews and continues to pretend it is a premier product.
No amount of bluster from Microsoft can hide the fact that Vista is a
significant step backward from XP in terms of speed, compatibility,
usability and stability. Increased use of Vista is simply due to Microsoft
pushing it onto computers purchased at retail. That reflects Microsoft's
clout, and the ongoing expansion/replacement cycle of SOHO computers, but
not the success of Vista.
Vista is still a corporate no show, non-starter. For example, what OS do you
see on the computer screens in the background of all the cable news
networks? Hint: it isn't Vista.
It boggles the mind.
Bill Gates, already a historical figure--the Henry Ford of computing,
retires with an Edsel as his legacy. I would think he would want something
better.