Linked by David Adams on Wed 23rd Apr 2008 16:31 UTC, submitted by CIozzio
Everyone's been talking for what feels like an eternity about Vista being a major blunder, and everyone has their theories as to why it happened. So why would John C. Dvorak be any different? He's got 11 reasons why the OS was destined to flop.
Permalink for comment 311024
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-06-29
The few times I've used Vista -- mostly when setting up a friend's new computer with AV/anti-malware programs -- it's been a UI nightmare for me. It seems almost as if they changed the most user-friendly aspects of XP and left in the crap. All the added "bling" from Aero and the new window decorations succeed in making it look even less professional than the Luna theme in XP.
Aesthetics aside, I've noticed a trend among name-brand PCs with Vista preinstalled. The cheaper HP and Dell systems which are barely a bump up from last year's XP machines are horribly slow under even Vista Basic, and the midrange systems that have all new technology still lag a bit under Vista Premium. An example: A friend bought an HP system with a dual core processor, 2GB of RAM, a fast SATA drive, a midrange nVidia 8xxx series video card and a 1GHz system bus. It absolutely crawled under Vista Premium even after removing all the bloatware installed by the manufacturer. It boggles the mind that my three year old eMac is snappier and more responsive than that new PC. Even when I had Ubuntu and XP on a 2005-era Compaq laptop I had better responsiveness than this new system.
I don't think I could ever invest in such a backwards OS and not feel incredibly stupid for doing so.