I've been using the vista for a while now. I find it fast, nice, and stable. But, I do have a powerful system that is able to handle it. But, before the two people who read this get all crazy, the same thing happened to XP. I remeber a penny arcade comic making fun of how hard it was to install and get XP working. I thought it was funny how people forget about this stuff, and just focus on when XP was good.
When XP launched, it was horrible; it was buggy, slow, didn't some of your games, and has security problems like crazy. But, eventually, XP got better, and became the stable OS it is today. Vista went through almost the same situation (except for the security problems). Vista was slow, had compadibility problems, and was high on resource use, just like XP when it came out. But, three years (about) after vista came out, the system requirements are less shocking, and less high end (just like XP) and now 7 (the windows 98 of the NT line) has polished it more, and perhaps nearly perfected the home NT line (the registry is still there, but I think they could fix that eventually).
So, when people look back on Vista, I hope they don't look back and say that it sucked, because I don't think it did; it just did not have the time to mature like the 2001 XP did. Vista is not the new ME, because ME was supported for a short while, was unstable, and not fixed. ME was dropped with XP came out the next year, and Vista has matured into the stable OS it is today, like 95 was when it came out, some what (they made it better in OSR2, and 98), and XP.
That is all, for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment