Phil Cook wrote:

> They'd have to produce a new OS that was better then XP? Alright being 
> serious everyone compares Vista to the early days of XP, except then we 
> were talking about switching home users from an unstable 95/98/ME OS to 
> a more stable XP that didn't require too stupid a hardware jump and 
> seemed to feature much more obvious benefits.
> 
> Now we've got a base using the stable XP, which just works (most of the 
> time) with anything you throw at it and trying to get them to invest in 
> this new Vista system by the same old tactic of 'convincing' the 
> hardware distributors to only use it. Then the home users find that half 
> (exaggeration) the stuff they want to do they can't run, that it's 
> slower on boot, slower to load; but hey at least it's pretty, assuming 
> you've not got suckered into that whole "Vista capable" scam
> 
> Microsoft can whine all they like about the fact its more secure etc. 
> the fact is as it stands it's worse then XP from a user perspective. The 
> best comparison may be getting the 2k user base upgrading to XP or hell 
> even the 2k crowd to Vista, why should I bother?

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070331

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message