Re: Why vista is considered a flop

On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:48:02 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>gatabassum wrote:
>> Why Windows Vista is considered a failure as compared to Window 98 and Windows XP?
>
>
> You'd have to ask those who are claiming it's "a flop." Such is
>certainly not my experience.

Less features, less performance, no known advantages, massive numbers
of major bugs.

That would sum up a flop.

 

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:48:02 -0600, Bruce Chambers
> <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:
>
>> gatabassum wrote:
>>> Why Windows Vista is considered a failure as compared to Window 98 and Windows XP?
>>
>> You'd have to ask those who are claiming it's "a flop." Such is
>> certainly not my experience.

Not mine either. <shrug>

>
> Less features, less performance, no known advantages, massive numbers
> of major bugs.

Your description pretty much sums up Windows 3.x.....

>
> That would sum up a flop.
>

......and it became a hugh success for MS because....??? ;-)

 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:07:04 -0700, propman <propman@nowhere.ca>
wrote:

>+Bob+ wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:48:02 -0600, Bruce Chambers
>> <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:
>>
>>> gatabassum wrote:
>>>> Why Windows Vista is considered a failure as compared to Window 98 and Windows XP?
>>>
>>> You'd have to ask those who are claiming it's "a flop." Such is
>>> certainly not my experience.
>
>Not mine either. <shrug>
>
>>
>> Less features, less performance, no known advantages, massive numbers
>> of major bugs.
>
>Your description pretty much sums up Windows 3.x.....
>
>>
>> That would sum up a flop.
>>
>
>.....and it became a hugh success for MS because....??? ;-)

Because, despite the bugs, when win 3.1 was working it was a major
improvement over using DOS.

The same can't be said for Vista. It's not an improvement over XP.