Chambers wrote:

>> Yeah, I guess that's it. And also whether the minor changes really are
>> "improvements" or just changes for the sake of changes. (Or changes to
>> make M$ customers happy, rather than M$ users...)
> 
> Why shouldn't they?  The customers are the ones who pay.

We pay too.

>> Well, for example, when Windows NT came out, they added *file
>> security*.
>> That's a pretty major addition. When Windows 2000 came out, they added
>> USB support. Not quite so major, but still pretty significant. When XP
> 
> USB support was in 98, and I think you could even get an update for 95
> to do it.

Probably. But they deliberately refused to do it for NT.

>> came out, they added... well it's pretty? And Vista seems to have
> added
> 
> XP was originally 2K made pretty for the masses; a 2K "Home" version, if
> you will.

I was convinced that there actually *was* a 2K Home edition... 
apparently not. Oh well!

> Over time they added to it, such that SP2 was basically a new OS.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

> A lot of the stuff is under the hood; that is, it just does things
> better, even though users won't necessarily notice the difference.

Oh, I think quite a few people have noticed the new lack of speed. ;-)

No, in seriousness... Adding new features under the hood is very nice 
and everything. Just don't expect me to rush out and buy something where 
I "won't really notice the difference", that's all.

>> Added in NT over ten years ago.
> 
> Did you actually *use* NT ten years ago?

Let me see now... It's 2008 today, so 10 years ago would have been 1998, 
the year I started my degree. And although most of the machines are 
Windows 95, some of them were indeed Windows NT 4.0. (And, in fairness, 
those ones did seem to work a lot better than the 9x ones!)

> I guarantee Vista stands head
> and shoulders above any version of NT ever published.  NT was great for
> it's time, but people keep asking for more features, and MS delivered
> them in the form of Vista.

So you're saying the multitude of small improvements really does add up 
to a larger whole then?

I have found from other M$ products that "improvements" are not always 
things you want. (E.g., the "improved" Start Menu that I keep having to 
turn off...)

>> I'd be pretty surprised if it actually works properly.
> 
> Define "properly" for that situation.  I've had a few interrupted
> installs, and it gracefully rolled back all changes for me so that
> nothing was left in a half-baked state.  Is that "proper?"

I still have trouble with software that doesn't install properly 
*without* a power interruption. :-S

> Your attitude is exactly what I meant in my first post when I said that
> some people just like to complain.
> 
> On the one hand, you claim that Vista makes hundreds of improvements.
> On the other hand, you say that it's a "few minor tweaks."

It seems to be that Vista is just like XP, with only minor adjustments. 
But *lots* of them. The question is whether these adjustments are 
desirable, and whether taken together they add up to something 
significant or not.

Who knows? Maybe in another 5 years' time, they will have applied so 
many bug-fixes to Vista that it will actually become a tempting 
proposition. (Much like XP before it. When XP first came out, nobody 
wanted to touch it. Now even I want to get rid of our old NT systems...)

Post a reply to this message