On 10/02/2007, at 10:45 AM, Cedric Meyerowitz wrote:
Ash
Is Vista less tested than Win95, Win98 & WinXP were when they were
initially
released ?
It's been a lot better tested than any of these. 95 and 98 were
unreliable toys, XP was a security nightmare.
Yet lots of people jumped in getting those OS shortly after each
one was released.
A lot of home users. Even with the wholesale change in 95 it was some
time before most businesses upgraded, and most of them chose NT.
Vista is a lot better out of the box than any MS OS before it, but
probably not more reliable than XP SP2, which is (finally) a
reasonably mature and securable system.
By all means upgrade at home (unless you want to play games right away).
The expectation that software houses should be ready to support a
system that has many radical changes in it immediately on release is
not realistic - and not much different than demanding a Mac or Linux
client, after all they've had plenty of time with these systems to
test them, and probably more immediate potential customers than with
Vista.
Peter.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
