Why do people still think that Vista has serious problems? Or bugs? Yes Vista is a little slower in benchmarks because of the graphic sub-system isn't part of the kernel anymore and there are tons of background processes. But UI improvements will speed up your every day work extremely on Vista compared to XP.
And yes there where hardware incompatibilities at the first months after the release mainly because hardware manufactorers (like Creative and Nvidia) haven't understood that most parts of Vista are completely re-coded (like graphic, network, printing and sound).
I'm not going to argue with this. I am just savoring the pure irony of the same apologetics for GUI graphics that I vividly remember oh those 8 years past with OS 10.0 & 10.1!!!! And the hue and cry from Redmond and Winboyz that THEIR OS was too advanced to ever have that kind of problem!!!!
Quote:
Microsoft does fix bugs with service packs, they never introduce new features (XP SP2 was an exception because of the poor security of the OS).
So they don't add features except when they do. Did you even think about what that particular sentence you wrote does to itself?
Quote:
Windows 7 does indeed get e new kernel but not new driver models. So anti-virus software from Vista will not be compatible but almost all drivers will be. 7 isn't Vista SP2 like Leopard isn't a Tiger SP. Vista is the new generation of the Windows OS so it would be fair to call Windows 7 the "Vista 2" like Leopard is "Mac OS X 6" or the 15th (?) version of Mac OS.
Not possible to code a new kernel in the amount of time they are doing. A new kernel takes YEARS to write and means a new everything else too, actually it's the combination of the two that force it to be a years long project. This is just updating what is already there in the existing kernel. I'm even interested to know the truth of Eran's snippet citing Windows 7 as being internally numbered 6.1.
Vista SP2 is actually released in April. So perhaps you guys need to move onto calling Windows 7 "Vista SP3"
And while the Kernel may be much the same, that doesn't change the fact that it install, boots, and performs faster.
I'm happy you prefer OS X, but being childish doesn't help the image of Apple as overly snobby. I think both OSs are good for each other and help push technology forward.
Kylie boy Vista SP2 still ain't out. Check you facts before you troll next time. K?.
The "beta" didn't come out till the beginning of December, and oh wait!!! It's shipping date has slipped again!!! Late Feb maybe? Then a "Whole new OS" four months after that?
No. Physicists can statistically prove that in a quantum universe it is more likely I will fart fire breathing dragons out my ass just before the Large Hadron Collider collapses the Earth into a synthetic singularity, than ANY lifeform in the universe successfully rewriting Vista to Windows 7 from scratch in a year while still having major engineering assets writing Vista SP2.
Face it Vista Sp2 and "Windows 7" shipping less than six months from each other mean that HAVE to be working the same codebase. Face it, the timing of releases is just as ridiculous as MacOS 8.6 suddenly shipping as OS 9 in the move used to kill the clones. Pure marketing baby, not engineering.
My sincere condolences to the poor ignorant dolts that are going to be buying Windows 7 on the premise that it's going to be a new, improved Windows product.
I gotta hand it to Microsoft. Microsoft is the king of marketing in a sense...better than Apple. It manages to push out the worst products and still retain total customer loyalty with promises of 'better' upcoming products.
... Face it, the timing of releases is just as ridiculous as MacOS 8.6 suddenly shipping as OS 9 in the move used to kill the clones. ...
Actually, MacOS 9.0 was originally intended to be MacOS 8.7, not MacOS 8.6. To the contrary, MacOS 8.6 was released on May 10, 1999 as a free update to MacOS 8.5. The statement, however, misses the mission of MacOS 9. MacOS 9 was not, and was never intended to be, a new and different OS than MacOS 8.x. MacOS 9 was the transition between MacOS 8.x and MacOS X 10.0.
My sincere condolences to the poor ignorant dolts that are going to be buying Windows 7 on the premise that it's going to be a new, improved Windows product.
I gotta hand it to Microsoft. Microsoft is the king of marketing in a sense...better than Apple. It manages to push out the worst products and still retain total customer loyalty with promises of 'better' upcoming products.
you aren't a computer or software engineer, are you? your comment makes no sense if you actually know how these things work.
My sincere condolences to the poor ignorant dolts that are going to be buying Windows 7 on the premise that it's going to be a new, improved Windows product.
Windows Vista (Just a fraction less problems than OSX, still not great though)
Windows 7 (Haven't hit a problem yet, but probably because I haven't used it much, and it is just a beta)
and at the end hopefully OSX 10.6
I know, I know 10.5 worse than Vista? But I have just hit walls in 10.5 with bluetooth making the system restart, my poor girlfriend always has problems connecting to Wifi at school, Can't play a single game (aside from the sims 2, which runs better on a 9 year old POS i have)... unfortunately I just hit too many walls. so my girlfriend uses the iMac and macbook, and i use my desktop and laptop. when 10.6 comes out, though, i'll jump right back in and mess around.
the only real pro i see in my desktop over the imac is that i can upgrade the monitor with ease
Well you both must have some real issues or something. These are not widespread issues, at least not this late in the game for Leopard. Just because you another person have experienced these issues doesn't make the OS a terrible OS.
I have an iMac and a new MacBook and both run flawlessly. Both are used everyday for hours on end and never any issues.
Vista on the end is the Windows Me of 21st century. Its a rushed OS that should have never been released. Uses TONS of resources, is slower than hell on any PC not jacked up in specs, has tons of compatibility issues with different pieces of software and hardware.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. Microsoft is just out to get the all mighty dollar (and many of them!) out of people to replace a very shitty OS. Everyone who purchased Vista or a computer with Vista should get a free upgrade to Windows 7 IMO.
And before you go out and ask...I work with both OS's everyday in the school districts I provide tech support for. Neither district will ever adopt Vista. Were all XP for now and will be until Windows 7 is released and are confident that our educational software will work with it without any issues. All of our new PCs came with Vista preinstalled, but were all erased with XP installed. Its just not what we want our students learning on.
So they don't add features except when they do. Did you even think about what that particular sentence you wrote does to itself?
A lot of Microsofties thought to make a complete new Windows version out of what became XP SP2 because of the improvements and new features. Just the bad press about the major security issues with XP has changed their minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Not possible to code a new kernel in the amount of time they are doing. A new kernel takes YEARS to write and means a new everything else too, actually it's the combination of the two that force it to be a years long project. This is just updating what is already there in the existing kernel. I'm even interested to know the truth of Eran's snippet citing Windows 7 as being internally numbered 6.1.
It's true that Windows 7 is 6.1 (the second version of it's new generaton of Windows)! The same like Leopard is OS X 10.5 (the 6th version of it's new OS generation). I haven't said that it does have an all new kernel. That's impossible but 6.1 isn't 6.0 therefore kernel related software will not be compatible (as I also said). An updated and enhanced kernel isn't the same kernel. BTW Vista does got a (minor) new kernel version with SP1.
Vista on the end is the Windows Me of 21st century. Its a rushed OS that should have never been released. Uses TONS of resources, is slower than hell on any PC not jacked up in specs, has tons of compatibility issues with different pieces of software and hardware.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.
Oh no. How can people say this? ME really was a mess even worse then Windows 98. But Vista has shown that it is rock solid and extremely secure. A lot of experts call it the most secure OS of the three major OSs. I wouldn't go so far because there are always more attacks against Windows machines, but you really should give Vista a try. Compatibility issues are something from the past. Vista is out there for more then 2 years now and it even runs perfect on netbooks if you follow the guides on the interwebs on how to install it via thumb drives.
Vista is a very nice operating system. Self-labelled "Mac users" hate it because they are Self-labelled "Mac users". Nothing Microsoft does will please a self-labelled "Mac user".
It ran very happily on my quad-core 4GB RAM desktop for a couple of years and Windows 7 is turning out to be even better.
It's funny how people can say something sucks despite their never actually using it.
... A lot of experts call it the most secure OS of the three major OSs. ...
What do mean by "a lot of experts"?
Those of us who weren't born yesterday know that the most damaging viruses in the history of Windows were XP viruses. The major reason that XP is getting so much newfound love is that Vista is so much worse in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo
... I wouldn't go so far because there are always more attacks against Windows machines, ...
The discredited Windows-is-so-bad-because-it-is-so-popular canard does not warrant a response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo
... but you really should give Vista a try.
Don't you get it? People don't like Vista because either they or someone that they know has tried it.
The major reason that XP is getting so much newfound love is that Vista is so much worse in comparison.
Newfound love? What? Because some OEMs do offer some downgrade options?
XP is 8 years old now. Vista does share almost nothing with XP. There is really no reason to go back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
The discredited Windows-is-so-bad-because-it-is-so-popular canard does not warrant a response.
Sure. Tell this to the Russian crackers that created the newest worms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
Don't you get it? People don't like Vista because either they or someone that they know has tried it.
People who have given Vista a try do like it or even love it. You can read this here on AppleInsider, too. Most of the people have never tried it and only read about it in local newspapers. And because of the terrible marketing MS has done they don't know about the benefits of Vista. You are a great example.
Oh no. How can people say this? ME really was a mess even worse then Windows 98. But Vista has shown that it is rock solid and extremely secure. A lot of experts call it the most secure OS of the three major OSs. I wouldn't go so far because there are always more attacks against Windows machines, but you really should give Vista a try. Compatibility issues are something from the past. Vista is out there for more then 2 years now and it even runs perfect on netbooks if you follow the guides on the interwebs on how to install it via thumb drives.
I have it installed and have used it many times. The school districts I support will not install it because the issues it causes. We'll wait for Windows 7 which is a lot better than Vista. This isn't like I'm just pulling things out of my butt here. These are all common issues with Vista.
Yes, it probably is more secure than XP, but the silly crap they pulled with Vista outweighs all of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Vista is a very nice operating system. Self-labelled "Mac users" hate it because they are Self-labelled "Mac users". Nothing Microsoft does will please a self-labelled "Mac user".
It ran very happily on my quad-core 4GB RAM desktop for a couple of years and Windows 7 is turning out to be even better.
It's funny how people can say something sucks despite their never actually using it.
My point exactly! If you don't have a kickass computer it runs like crap. Unfortunately not all new PCs are quad-core and come with 4GB of RAM. You shouldn't need this class of a system to make it run good and you shouldn't be made to upgrade a computer out of the box to make it run the OS smoothly. And you can't blame for not wanting to stuff 4GB of RAM into every computer they sell.
You don't see Leopard running like crap on new computers, or even old computers unless there's either something wrong with the computer or installation. Hell I can run it fine on my 867 MHz PowerMac G4 with only 1 GB of RAM.
I will say the Windows 7 is a lot better. Its what Vista should have been when it shipped. Its just shame Microsoft is going to charge customers for the upgrade they should have gotten 2yrs ago.
My point exactly! If you don't have a kickass computer it runs like crap. Unfortunately not all new PCs are quad-core and come with 4GB of RAM. You shouldn't need this class of a system to make it run good and you shouldn't be made to upgrade a computer out of the box to make it run the OS smoothly. And you can't blame for not wanting to stuff 4GB of RAM into every computer they sell.
My having a good system and being happy with Vista does not imply that only systems on par with mine will run Vista well. You made a huge leap in logic. Saying a Mac Pro with 8GB RAM runs OSX 10.5 well is not an indictment of OSX 10.5. But you don’t see it that way, because you are only seeing what you want to see.
Quote:
You don't see Leopard running like crap on new computers, or even old computers unless there's either something wrong with the computer or installation. Hell I can run it fine on my 867 MHz PowerMac G4 with only 1 GB of RAM.
My having a good system and being happy with Vista does not imply that only systems on par with mine will run Vista well. You made a huge leap in logic. Saying a Mac Pro with 8GB RAM runs OSX 10.5 well is not an indictment of OSX 10.5. But you don?t see it that way, because you are only seeing what you want to see.
Well there?s a lot of subjectivity for you.
Ok, nevermind thinking about what I said. You absolutely and totally missed the point I was trying to make.
Actually, MacOS 9.0 was originally intended to be MacOS 8.7, not MacOS 8.6. To the contrary, MacOS 8.6 was released on May 10, 1999 as a free update to MacOS 8.5. The statement, however, misses the mission of MacOS 9. MacOS 9 was not, and was never intended to be, a new and different OS than MacOS 8.x. MacOS 9 was the transition between MacOS 8.x and MacOS X 10.0.
Thanks for the 8.7 fix. I disagree that it was intended as a transition to OS X though, I think that's a side effect simply because something had to come between the two. It was simply a way to cut the clone makers out of the picture. Apple was obliged to provide the clone makers with all the point updates of Mac OS 8. Shipping what really was 8.7 rebadged as 9.0 meant it did not have to be provided to the clone makers.
Comments
Why do people still think that Vista has serious problems? Or bugs? Yes Vista is a little slower in benchmarks because of the graphic sub-system isn't part of the kernel anymore and there are tons of background processes. But UI improvements will speed up your every day work extremely on Vista compared to XP.
And yes there where hardware incompatibilities at the first months after the release mainly because hardware manufactorers (like Creative and Nvidia) haven't understood that most parts of Vista are completely re-coded (like graphic, network, printing and sound).
I'm not going to argue with this. I am just savoring the pure irony of the same apologetics for GUI graphics that I vividly remember oh those 8 years past with OS 10.0 & 10.1!!!! And the hue and cry from Redmond and Winboyz that THEIR OS was too advanced to ever have that kind of problem!!!!
Microsoft does fix bugs with service packs, they never introduce new features (XP SP2 was an exception because of the poor security of the OS).
So they don't add features except when they do. Did you even think about what that particular sentence you wrote does to itself?
Windows 7 does indeed get e new kernel but not new driver models. So anti-virus software from Vista will not be compatible but almost all drivers will be. 7 isn't Vista SP2 like Leopard isn't a Tiger SP. Vista is the new generation of the Windows OS so it would be fair to call Windows 7 the "Vista 2" like Leopard is "Mac OS X 6" or the 15th (?) version of Mac OS.
Not possible to code a new kernel in the amount of time they are doing. A new kernel takes YEARS to write and means a new everything else too, actually it's the combination of the two that force it to be a years long project. This is just updating what is already there in the existing kernel. I'm even interested to know the truth of Eran's snippet citing Windows 7 as being internally numbered 6.1.
Vista SP2 is actually released in April. So perhaps you guys need to move onto calling Windows 7 "Vista SP3"
And while the Kernel may be much the same, that doesn't change the fact that it install, boots, and performs faster.
I'm happy you prefer OS X, but being childish doesn't help the image of Apple as overly snobby. I think both OSs are good for each other and help push technology forward.
Kylie boy Vista SP2 still ain't out. Check you facts before you troll next time. K?.
The "beta" didn't come out till the beginning of December, and oh wait!!! It's shipping date has slipped again!!! Late Feb maybe? Then a "Whole new OS" four months after that?
No. Physicists can statistically prove that in a quantum universe it is more likely I will fart fire breathing dragons out my ass just before the Large Hadron Collider collapses the Earth into a synthetic singularity, than ANY lifeform in the universe successfully rewriting Vista to Windows 7 from scratch in a year while still having major engineering assets writing Vista SP2.
Face it Vista Sp2 and "Windows 7" shipping less than six months from each other mean that HAVE to be working the same codebase. Face it, the timing of releases is just as ridiculous as MacOS 8.6 suddenly shipping as OS 9 in the move used to kill the clones. Pure marketing baby, not engineering.
I gotta hand it to Microsoft. Microsoft is the king of marketing in a sense...better than Apple. It manages to push out the worst products and still retain total customer loyalty with promises of 'better' upcoming products.
... Face it, the timing of releases is just as ridiculous as MacOS 8.6 suddenly shipping as OS 9 in the move used to kill the clones. ...
Actually, MacOS 9.0 was originally intended to be MacOS 8.7, not MacOS 8.6. To the contrary, MacOS 8.6 was released on May 10, 1999 as a free update to MacOS 8.5. The statement, however, misses the mission of MacOS 9. MacOS 9 was not, and was never intended to be, a new and different OS than MacOS 8.x. MacOS 9 was the transition between MacOS 8.x and MacOS X 10.0.
My sincere condolences to the poor ignorant dolts that are going to be buying Windows 7 on the premise that it's going to be a new, improved Windows product.
I gotta hand it to Microsoft. Microsoft is the king of marketing in a sense...better than Apple. It manages to push out the worst products and still retain total customer loyalty with promises of 'better' upcoming products.
you aren't a computer or software engineer, are you? your comment makes no sense if you actually know how these things work.
My sincere condolences to the poor ignorant dolts that are going to be buying Windows 7 on the premise that it's going to be a new, improved Windows product.
Yeah, suckers!
you guys are cute
they are all basically the same, by the way.
most to least problematic systems I've used:
Windows XP
Windows ME
Ubuntu 8.04
Mac OSX 10.5
Windows Vista (Just a fraction less problems than OSX, still not great though)
Windows 7 (Haven't hit a problem yet, but probably because I haven't used it much, and it is just a beta)
and at the end hopefully OSX 10.6
I know, I know 10.5 worse than Vista? But I have just hit walls in 10.5 with bluetooth making the system restart, my poor girlfriend always has problems connecting to Wifi at school, Can't play a single game (aside from the sims 2, which runs better on a 9 year old POS i have)... unfortunately I just hit too many walls. so my girlfriend uses the iMac and macbook, and i use my desktop and laptop. when 10.6 comes out, though, i'll jump right back in and mess around.
the only real pro i see in my desktop over the imac is that i can upgrade the monitor with ease
Well you both must have some real issues or something. These are not widespread issues, at least not this late in the game for Leopard. Just because you another person have experienced these issues doesn't make the OS a terrible OS.
I have an iMac and a new MacBook and both run flawlessly. Both are used everyday for hours on end and never any issues.
Vista on the end is the Windows Me of 21st century. Its a rushed OS that should have never been released. Uses TONS of resources, is slower than hell on any PC not jacked up in specs, has tons of compatibility issues with different pieces of software and hardware.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. Microsoft is just out to get the all mighty dollar (and many of them!) out of people to replace a very shitty OS. Everyone who purchased Vista or a computer with Vista should get a free upgrade to Windows 7 IMO.
And before you go out and ask...I work with both OS's everyday in the school districts I provide tech support for. Neither district will ever adopt Vista. Were all XP for now and will be until Windows 7 is released and are confident that our educational software will work with it without any issues. All of our new PCs came with Vista preinstalled, but were all erased with XP installed. Its just not what we want our students learning on.
So they don't add features except when they do. Did you even think about what that particular sentence you wrote does to itself?
A lot of Microsofties thought to make a complete new Windows version out of what became XP SP2 because of the improvements and new features. Just the bad press about the major security issues with XP has changed their minds.
Not possible to code a new kernel in the amount of time they are doing. A new kernel takes YEARS to write and means a new everything else too, actually it's the combination of the two that force it to be a years long project. This is just updating what is already there in the existing kernel. I'm even interested to know the truth of Eran's snippet citing Windows 7 as being internally numbered 6.1.
It's true that Windows 7 is 6.1 (the second version of it's new generaton of Windows)! The same like Leopard is OS X 10.5 (the 6th version of it's new OS generation). I haven't said that it does have an all new kernel. That's impossible but 6.1 isn't 6.0 therefore kernel related software will not be compatible (as I also said). An updated and enhanced kernel isn't the same kernel. BTW Vista does got a (minor) new kernel version with SP1.
Vista on the end is the Windows Me of 21st century. Its a rushed OS that should have never been released. Uses TONS of resources, is slower than hell on any PC not jacked up in specs, has tons of compatibility issues with different pieces of software and hardware.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.
Oh no. How can people say this? ME really was a mess even worse then Windows 98. But Vista has shown that it is rock solid and extremely secure. A lot of experts call it the most secure OS of the three major OSs. I wouldn't go so far because there are always more attacks against Windows machines, but you really should give Vista a try. Compatibility issues are something from the past. Vista is out there for more then 2 years now and it even runs perfect on netbooks if you follow the guides on the interwebs on how to install it via thumb drives.
It ran very happily on my quad-core 4GB RAM desktop for a couple of years and Windows 7 is turning out to be even better.
It's funny how people can say something sucks despite their never actually using it.
... A lot of experts call it the most secure OS of the three major OSs. ...
What do mean by "a lot of experts"?
Those of us who weren't born yesterday know that the most damaging viruses in the history of Windows were XP viruses. The major reason that XP is getting so much newfound love is that Vista is so much worse in comparison.
... I wouldn't go so far because there are always more attacks against Windows machines, ...
The discredited Windows-is-so-bad-because-it-is-so-popular canard does not warrant a response.
... but you really should give Vista a try.
Don't you get it? People don't like Vista because either they or someone that they know has tried it.
The major reason that XP is getting so much newfound love is that Vista is so much worse in comparison.
Newfound love? What? Because some OEMs do offer some downgrade options?
XP is 8 years old now. Vista does share almost nothing with XP. There is really no reason to go back.
The discredited Windows-is-so-bad-because-it-is-so-popular canard does not warrant a response.
Sure. Tell this to the Russian crackers that created the newest worms.
Don't you get it? People don't like Vista because either they or someone that they know has tried it.
People who have given Vista a try do like it or even love it. You can read this here on AppleInsider, too. Most of the people have never tried it and only read about it in local newspapers. And because of the terrible marketing MS has done they don't know about the benefits of Vista. You are a great example.
You should not just repeat what the ads and keynote slides from Apple tell you. They do have their own "reality": http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...Nu4y1/340x.jpg
Why not just get some facts instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securit..._Windows_Vista ?
Don't you get it? People don't like Vista because either they or someone that they know has tried it.
I like the "or someone that they know" thrown in there. Gotta cover the fact that most of you who bash Vista have never actually used it.
Oh no. How can people say this? ME really was a mess even worse then Windows 98. But Vista has shown that it is rock solid and extremely secure. A lot of experts call it the most secure OS of the three major OSs. I wouldn't go so far because there are always more attacks against Windows machines, but you really should give Vista a try. Compatibility issues are something from the past. Vista is out there for more then 2 years now and it even runs perfect on netbooks if you follow the guides on the interwebs on how to install it via thumb drives.
I have it installed and have used it many times. The school districts I support will not install it because the issues it causes. We'll wait for Windows 7 which is a lot better than Vista. This isn't like I'm just pulling things out of my butt here. These are all common issues with Vista.
Yes, it probably is more secure than XP, but the silly crap they pulled with Vista outweighs all of that.
Vista is a very nice operating system. Self-labelled "Mac users" hate it because they are Self-labelled "Mac users". Nothing Microsoft does will please a self-labelled "Mac user".
It ran very happily on my quad-core 4GB RAM desktop for a couple of years and Windows 7 is turning out to be even better.
It's funny how people can say something sucks despite their never actually using it.
My point exactly! If you don't have a kickass computer it runs like crap. Unfortunately not all new PCs are quad-core and come with 4GB of RAM. You shouldn't need this class of a system to make it run good and you shouldn't be made to upgrade a computer out of the box to make it run the OS smoothly. And you can't blame for not wanting to stuff 4GB of RAM into every computer they sell.
You don't see Leopard running like crap on new computers, or even old computers unless there's either something wrong with the computer or installation. Hell I can run it fine on my 867 MHz PowerMac G4 with only 1 GB of RAM.
I will say the Windows 7 is a lot better. Its what Vista should have been when it shipped. Its just shame Microsoft is going to charge customers for the upgrade they should have gotten 2yrs ago.
My point exactly! If you don't have a kickass computer it runs like crap. Unfortunately not all new PCs are quad-core and come with 4GB of RAM. You shouldn't need this class of a system to make it run good and you shouldn't be made to upgrade a computer out of the box to make it run the OS smoothly. And you can't blame for not wanting to stuff 4GB of RAM into every computer they sell.
My having a good system and being happy with Vista does not imply that only systems on par with mine will run Vista well. You made a huge leap in logic. Saying a Mac Pro with 8GB RAM runs OSX 10.5 well is not an indictment of OSX 10.5. But you don’t see it that way, because you are only seeing what you want to see.
You don't see Leopard running like crap on new computers, or even old computers unless there's either something wrong with the computer or installation. Hell I can run it fine on my 867 MHz PowerMac G4 with only 1 GB of RAM.
Well there’s a lot of subjectivity for you.
My having a good system and being happy with Vista does not imply that only systems on par with mine will run Vista well. You made a huge leap in logic. Saying a Mac Pro with 8GB RAM runs OSX 10.5 well is not an indictment of OSX 10.5. But you don?t see it that way, because you are only seeing what you want to see.
Well there?s a lot of subjectivity for you.
Ok, nevermind thinking about what I said. You absolutely and totally missed the point I was trying to make.
Actually, MacOS 9.0 was originally intended to be MacOS 8.7, not MacOS 8.6. To the contrary, MacOS 8.6 was released on May 10, 1999 as a free update to MacOS 8.5. The statement, however, misses the mission of MacOS 9. MacOS 9 was not, and was never intended to be, a new and different OS than MacOS 8.x. MacOS 9 was the transition between MacOS 8.x and MacOS X 10.0.
Thanks for the 8.7 fix. I disagree that it was intended as a transition to OS X though, I think that's a side effect simply because something had to come between the two. It was simply a way to cut the clone makers out of the picture. Apple was obliged to provide the clone makers with all the point updates of Mac OS 8. Shipping what really was 8.7 rebadged as 9.0 meant it did not have to be provided to the clone makers.
... I disagree that it was intended as a transition to OS X though, ...
And yet, that was its primary mission.
My point exactly! If you don't have a kickass computer it runs like crap. Unfortunately not all new PCs are quad-core and come with 4GB of RAM.
Really? My parents use Vista on a very old single core machine with 1 GB RAM. It runs perfectly but yes, you wouldn't get 120fps in Crysis
Many people are using Vista on their netbooks these days. Even with Aero Glass effects: http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...a+netbook&aq=f
So your point isn't really true. It would be helpful if you could be more specific about the problems you had.