To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I thought Vista was more like OSX.0. Slow, incompatible, horribly inadequate and it'll be five revisions later before it's up to scratch.
The problem with Vista is that if MS move to a new OS and virtualise Vista, Vista will end up being heavier than the new OS, what a drag that will be. It would have been far, far better if MS had virtualised XP inside of Vista and dropped all backcompat in the name of a cleaner, leaner stack on top of the Kernel.
Vista was mismanaged. I don't doubt the programmers themselves because Microsoft produce good, solid products on every front except for consumer Windows releases!
Except OSX was (from the Mac community's standpoint) a completely new OS, where Vista is just more stuffs piled onto NT5 (2000 and XP), and I highly doubt they can do much to make it better other than stripping it down to the bare essentials and putting something new on top of it (which will be "WinOSX")
"Windows Vista is Microsoft's OS9. It's done, it's used used up, there's no more stretch in the elastics, as we Dutch say. It's time to move on, and make a viable plan for the future - and I don't see how Microsoft can maintain its relevancy by building atop Vista."
Yes, exactly like OS9 - a 64-bit, preemptive multitasking, hardware graphics accelerated OS9 with virtual memory.







Member since:
2005-06-29
Windows Vista is Microsoft's OS9. It's done, it's used used up, there's no more stretch in the elastics, as we Dutch say. It's time to move on, and make a viable plan for the future - and I don't see how Microsoft can maintain its relevancy by building atop Vista.
Edited 2007-10-22 14:42 UTC