In general terms, how big of a "rewrite" is Vista from XP?
98se was similar to ME. XP was radically different from ME. However, most
programs still worked. So, describe Vista.
Windows 3.x was a joke. An ugly shell launched from DOS.
Windows 95. Was a DRAMATIC change. It introduced 32-bit code and a
much much improved interface.
Windows 98-ME were "dressed up" 95 with some code and UI improvements
(although I don't consider "active desktop' to have been an
improvement".
Windows NT 4 was an improved NT + the features/gui (sans plug and
play) added in Win95.
Windows 2000 was the next version of NT, with improved stability, plug
and play and more.
Windows XP (Home & Professional) built upon the improvements in the NT
Kernel that was in Win2K and gave you with a less ugly GUI (with the
option to go back to the uglier Win95-ME GUI, for those really into
ugly).
XP was also the first version of Windows to FINALLY bring the NT
kernel and it's stability to your average Joe.
Vista has almost completely new code under the hood, a vastly improved
Start Menu, and GUI (Aero) and (in my case) it's no less stable and
just as fast as Windows XP SP2.
All that power does of course come at a price. Your average
"cheap" PC from a few years ago won't run it, or if it will it won't
run well and you won't get Aero (which from a Consumer POV is the
coolest thing about Vista).
See for yourself.
http://www.windowsvista.com
Vista isn't perfect, it's got it's flaws, quirks and bugs (as does
EVERY OS) but it's a VAST improvement over anything MS has put out
previously.
If only they'd replace UAC with Sudo.......
But no OS will ever satisfy me. That's why I don't limit myself to
just one. :0)
--
Scott
http://angrykeyboarder.com
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
