On 6/24/2010 12:42 PM, Boscoe wrote:
> On 24/06/2010 8:02 PM, Frank wrote:
>> On 6/24/2010 11:23 AM, Cameo wrote:
>>> "Roland Schweiger" <roland_schweiger@web.de> wrote in message
>>> news:hvv3sb$lgd$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Vista (and Win7) were a big leap forward, whereas XP is relatively old.
>>>
>>> Well, as to Vista being a big leap forward is debatable.
>>
>> No, it is a know fact.
>>
>> XP is still
>>> more popular than Vista.
>>
>> And XP has been out much, much longer than XP.
>>
>> But that's just my opinion ...
>>
>> But your opinion is not factual.
>
>
>
> Vista was an absolute disaster for Microsoft.
Not really. It was such a change form XP and as usual, most people
resist change.
>
> Many users found their printers, digital cameras and MP3 players didn't
> work on it.
That is simply not true.
How processor-hungry it was, making it almost impossible to
> use on anything but the newest, fastest computers.
Again, that is just not true and you cannot back up that assertion with
any real verifiable empirical data.
Although a number of problems were resolved by subsequent service packs,
the successful launch of Windows 7 went some way towards repairing that
damage; lessons had clearly been learned, and Microsoft worked more
closely with manufacturers to ensure the upgrade process worked this time.
Vista SP2 runs quite nicely, as least on my boxes.
A lot of "damage" was done by MS hating lying linturd asshole losers who
smelled blood and did everything they could pile on, while they could.
7 simply shut the door on them.