Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 16:26 UTC
Permalink for comment 406687
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 05/23/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-06-07
1) XP was good enough, especially considering the *necessary* Vista flop. However, it's a little long in the tooth and hardware support was likely becoming more of an issue for them.

2) Discontent people running Vista wanting to get off ASAP.
I think Vista was an absolutely necessary step for MS. Vista was "so bad" not because the OS was bad, but because the entire software ecosystem around it was so bad. MS made a very concentrated effort to secure its operating system. It did that pretty well all things considered, but software that ran on Windows made some very stupid assumptions that it would have full administrative access to the machine and this meant a lot of software, including Microsoft's own Office Suite didn't work well on it.
Fast forward a number of years and now that ecosystem of programs are developed and work with the additional security layers in place. The better user experience is *because* of the pain the Vista caused.
Even as a strong UNIX, GNU/Linux and BSD user, I'm impressed with what Microsoft has accomplished with Windows 7 and Windows 2008 R2. I still use GNU/Linux and BSD nearly exclusively but I must say.. Bravo Microsoft, Bravo, but I still won't use your products.