Linked by Smith Johnson on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:22 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 274873
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by raver31 on Thu 27th Sep 2007 19:38
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
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
Because 6 years since XP is a very long time, and a lot of the people who went out on day 1 and bought Vista were users who had only ever tried XP.
Us oldies knew better than to expect Vista to be all things to everyone.




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?