Linked by David Adams on Wed 23rd Apr 2008 17:23 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 311154
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[2]: Vista is just fine for me
by andrewg on Thu 24th Apr 2008 11:37
in reply to "RE: Vista is just fine for me"
I would have to be bold enough as to disagree with you here to some extent. In the Apple world, for transition to OSX from OS9, they used (Apple people, please forgive my crude oversimplification) a virtual machine to run their software-My point is: Why would amaze you that people would expect the same from a company with such vast resources as Microsoft?
Classic sucked big time. It was incredibly slow on an incredibly slow OS and crashed a lot. Yes 10.0 was a beta at best and so slow that one could be tricked into believing the bouncing icons were animated backgrounds. 10.1 was the real release. If you used classic under 10.0 you would have known that apart from being slower than molasses running uphill in the middle of a Canadian winter there were many applications that simply would not run.
If anything Apple tricked its incredibly tolerant and at that time much smaller and more hardcore user base. They promised backwards compatibility, then when it sucked badly the relatively few and mostly small development companies ported their mostly small applications to the OS X. Companies like Quark took ages to get their software on OS X.
RE[3]: Vista is just fine for me
by elektrik on Thu 24th Apr 2008 18:54
in reply to "RE[2]: Vista is just fine for me"
I can't comment on Apple hardware, as I don't touch it that often, but surely you can't believe that they *tricked* every single "hardcore" user? Could it be that perhaps you had a subjective experience?
No matter, it was just an analogy I used to point out that Microsoft could do something similar, and with extremely vast resources in comparison to Apple could create a VM that would be less "buggy" than the Apple example I gave





Member since:
2006-04-18
I would have to be bold enough as to disagree with you here to some extent. In the Apple world, for transition to OSX from OS9, they used (Apple people, please forgive my crude oversimplification) a virtual machine to run their software-My point is: Why would amaze you that people would expect the same from a company with such vast resources as Microsoft?