no offense to microsoft, but vista sounds a little...pointless.
basically to me, it sounds like the Win2000 - XP story. i mean, seriously, i had Win2k Pro, got a computer with XP for christmas, and the only difference i can tell is the "better" visual themes. same security, same reliability, same just-about-everything. (though i did just remember that XP has compatibility mode whereas Win2k did not. good job, gates.)
but i mean, what's so great about vista? i know it's supposedly a "revolution" for microsoft's file system as we know it, but who's to say that a copy of Win2000 or XP won't do the job just as well? (and for less $$$!)
i say we shouldn't be holding our breaths and waiting to buy "prettier" vista-standard computer systems, but i don't know. thoughts?
2006-07-06
15:27:24
·
4 answers
·
asked by
answers, answers
4
in
Computers & Internet
➔ Software
not to say that anyone's wrong (except maybe me) one way or another, buttt:
"2000 and xp has nothing in common"
really? because i'm pretty sure that XP was based on Win2000, but with visual themes and a few other minor enhancements.
"maybe the platform :win NT"
yes.
(and also, conradj213, i totally agree that security restrictions are a major pain, even in XP and probably in vista. i am a "power user" and am often frustrated by how naive my computer thinks me to be. haha, but oh well. and yes, you're not alone, i too am a sucker for pretty OS's. which is just about the only thing so far that would compel me to get vista.)
2006-07-06
15:45:09 ·
update #1