__/ [ Rob Hughes ] on Thursday 02 March 2006 14:33 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Why Windows Vista will suck
> Those guys could have saved themselves a lot of time by just writing "we're
> MS fan boys! We love Bill! We're not worthy!" Bah...
> Major points:
> Shadow copies - They say it won't create a "real" copy. Well, if by "real"
> copy, they mean one that can be accessed through explorer, then they're
> right. Otherwise, it's nice to see MS finally catch up with the 29 year old
> VMS system in this regard.
> Moving drivers into user land: Didn't MS tell us just 10 years ago that
> running drivers in user land was a major hit on performance? Are they now
> telling us they got it completely wrong?
Twice this afternoon I saw Windows laptops that reboot immediately due to
driver issues. This was a recurring issue to each the only cure is often a
re-installation. Good luck to them...
> Re-architected kernel: Hmmmm... Isn't XP supposed to be the most secure OS
> there is? So why rewrite the kernel yet again? Do the fan boys also realize
> that this essentially means we're seeing Windows Vista 1.0? And that no
> sane person installs a .0 release of anything? And again, is this an
> admission that MS got it completely wrong there, too?
They have admitted it already. They dropped back to older code, having
repeatedly failed to run the beast.
> Integrated IPv6: Wow... only took 'em about 8-10 years to catch on there.
> Pre-fetch: How long have gcc-compiled apps been able to do that? Seems like
> Well, I guess I can relax now. I had *snigger* thought that *chortle* Vista
> might actually *hehe* offer something *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* *pop* *ow... I
> think I broke something* innovative....
Well, with so many Windows user that anticipate Vista out there, how could
you disappoint them in mainstream media? Give people what they want....