Comments on: Windows Vista 7: Less Gratis, Now with More Antifeatures

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:14:14 +0000

but there is a linear progression of fail going on. W2K failed a little more than 98 and 98SE, XP was a little slower than W2K and Vista was even more rejected than ME. Despite the usual massive hype Windows 7 is more of the same and will be an even bigger failure.

Hurf durf….

2000 workstation was aimed at the corporate desktop and 2000 server managed to strengthen Microsoft’s increasing strangle hold on the low end and mid range server OS domain. XP was apparently so slow and horrible that it continues to be the most used desktop operating system available. Vista might be a giant turd, but don’t try to act like there is a trend towards Microsoft’s failing dominance in that market segment beyond Vista. Time will tell with Windows 7, but you don’t know what will happen any more than I.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:42:26 +0000

Windows 7 is more of the same and will be an even bigger failure.

You mean Windows 6.1, right?

By: twitter

twitter — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:40:16 +0000

LOL, David. There's only so many times M$ can lie to their customers and get away with it. They have been shedding customers this way since 1991. Vista did fail epically, but there is a linear progression of fail going on. W2K failed a little more than 98 and 98SE, XP was a little slower than W2K and Vista was even more rejected than ME. Despite the usual massive hype Windows 7 is more of the same and will be an even bigger failure.

By: David Gerard

David Gerard — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:32:46 +0000

Oh by the way - that quote? I posted on Eric S. Raymond's blog (that Vista was in fact the "Windows 2000 car crash" ESR predicted in Revenge Of The Hackers) and someone promptly quoted it back to me, clearly third-hand: "some people even say that Wine is more compatible with Windows than Vista is"! I claim this meme *adds one point to score*