Sazar
Rest In Peace
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2002
- Messages
- 14,905
All credit to this link.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382
I found it amusing and relatively accurate 🙂
This is followed by several comments from 2001 and 2007, with comparisons between Win2k and XP, and then XP and Vista.
Oh sweetness. Why art facts so funneh :smoker:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382
I found it amusing and relatively accurate 🙂
I am amused by the current lovefest going on with Windows XP. It’s the greatest operating system ever, in the minds of some, especially compared to the allegedly bloated, slow Windows Vista. In fact, InfoWorld has gone so far as to kick off a “Save XP” petition drive.
Vista bashers really hate it when you point out that the same criticisms being leveled at Vista today were commonly aimed at XP after its launch. Fortunately, I’ve found a near-perfect example of this trend. It’s illuminating, and ironically, it comes from InfoWorld blogger Randall Kennedy, who has been bashing Vista and hyping the “Save XP” campaign relentlessly on his Enterprise Desktop blog. His latest entry dismisses any comparison between Vista now and XP then:
This is followed by several comments from 2001 and 2007, with comparisons between Win2k and XP, and then XP and Vista.
On Windows 2000:
2001: “IT departments should take advantage of license downgrade provisions and continue to press forward with Windows 2000 deployments until the installed hardware base catches up with XP.”
2007: “Windows 2000 doesn’t count since it was never a mainstream product.”
On why your old OS was better:
2001: “Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version.”
2007: “[E]xhaustive testing confirms that Windows Vista is at least twice as slow as Windows XP when running on the same hardware.”
On hardware:
2001: “ntil 2GHz desktop PCs become commonplace, we have a hard time recommending widespread adoption of Windows XP at all.”
2007: “Windows XP SP3 … absolutely screams on today’s high-end, multi-core desktops.”
On “bloated” new features:
2001: “Shops lured by XP features should weigh their options carefully. In many cases, these features may not be compelling enough to justify saddling your end-users with a slower OS.”
2007: “Vista, which is basically Windows XP with more “stuff” heaped on top, and you begin to see why so many users are balking at the upgrade message. There’s simply not enough “meat” to justify the pain involved.”
Oh sweetness. Why art facts so funneh :smoker: