Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> MS is 
> cutting their own throat this time imho, but it might take some time for 
> the corpse to show signs of the real necrosis.

  Unfortunately I don't believe that's the case this time either.

  When Windows95 hit the shelves for the first time it was a horrible,
horrible "OS" (if it can even be called that). It was rushed half-ready
because of deadline pressures, it was extremely heavy for the computers
of the time, it was full of bugs, it was full of hardware problems, it
was full of backwards compatibility problems...

  Does this sound familiar? Yet it took but 1-2 years for Windows95 to
become the "industry standard", even though some struggled with Windows 3.x
for a few years more.

  Windows XP was for long time vaporware, delivered very late, it was
promised to be the next "big step" in the Windows history (equal, if not
even larger step than the Win3 -> Win95 step), a promise which was only
half-fulfilled (well, I would say only 1/4-fulfilled). When it hit the
shelves it was ridiculously heavy, with ridiculous hardware requirements,
it was very buggy, and almost all reviews recommended waiting for SP1
before changing to it at the big scale.

  Does this sound familiar? Yet, once again, it took 1-2 years for WinXP
to become the "industry standard".

  I don't see Vista being any different from this. It's ridiculously
heavy, it's buggy, it has backwards-compatibility issues... It's the
same story repeated once again. In 1-2 years it *will* be the "industry
standard".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message