Linked by Smith Johnson on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:22 UTC
Permalink for comment 274873
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-05
It really is a matter of personal experience. Personally, I was using Linux during the ME/XP years, because I always found windows to be an archaic piece of crap. After giving the OEM Home Premium version that came with my laptop a try, Vista is what got me back on to windows.
RTM XP had very similar things going on. Not quite to the same level, but similar. Games didn't run well, people on different hardware configurations got vastly different experiences. I tried it out pre-launch (downloaded a leaked copy) and had no problems. A friend of mine bought it at launch, and found the perfomance and stability unacceptable, he didnt upgrade until sp1.
If it took XP until SP2 to become "rock solid", and XP was an incremental upgrade over 2k, then why is Vista to be dismissed pre-sp1 for not being perfect for everyone?