Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Oct 2010 22:23 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 446970
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.
My point was simply that windows xp transition millions of home users from an older completely different code base to a new one, with minimal problems. They didn't have to release a terrible version that had "fundamental changes" in it to build upon in the future.
The reasoning I was objecting to was just that: "to release a good product, you must first release a really bad one. "




Member since:
2008-01-09
In several workplaces, many people preferred to stay with Windows 2000, the XP uptake was slow there... almost Vista slow.
One of the biggest advantages XP had over Vista in overcoming its predecessor was that XP SP3 was not nearly as crappy as Windows ME was compared to its successor.
I remember XP having some HW issues, such as it not booting without unplugging a USB keyboard I had... not until it finished the installation and got some more patches.