Everyone’s mileage varies a bit. I did a bunch of personal and super
small business side work from late Win3.1 to the initial XP days. Sure
95 wasn’t perfect, but the changes were major and overall I believed it
was a positive and forward moving experience. NT was the clear winner,
but it was very slow and hardware and application support were well
behind the lesser 95. They improved 95 and even 98 had major changes
during its life cycle.
I did have serious issues with ME and ended up steering folks to 2000
Vista was a big change too, but it was very clear it wasn’t optimized on
release. Even the folklore out of MS on the development of Vista is best
described as ‘train wreck.’
Does it mean Vista was really junk? As you pointed out, it can take time
for adoption and Win7 is really just polished Vista.
We still have vertical app vendors that don’t want to support anything
post XP, let alone a 64-bit platform. Even though we have no plans for
Win8, we have taken to telling the vendors the 3rd major release post-XP
is coming and XP is being fully retired on our PCs. They didn’t jump on
the Vista train, and sorta lost the way with 7. Hopefully programmer’s
everywhere wake up a little and move forward just a byte.
On 6/29/2012 7:52 AM, craig wilson wrote:[color=blue]
The primary reason folks say “Junk” is when a major change happens until
Also sometimes it takes Software/Hardware Driver folks time to catch up.
So the 1st year of a significantly new OS can lead to issues until
nearly everyone updates for the new OS.
For Example - I still have Vista on regular laptop.
I have Win7 Licenses where I could upgrade, but I 100% forget it’s not
Windows 7 in daily use. I’ve never had to reinstall but if I do I will
put Win7 on it.
WinMe is likely the only failure and i’m not sure if it was technical as
much as Windows 2000 was just so much better and ppl were ready to make
the jump to the new OS Model.