Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Only mildly so. Not nearly on the same level as the disappointment of Vista.Meh, xp was a disappointment back in 2000 also.
But also remember that Windows 98 was a very buggy, unstable OS itself. And believe me I know, I once used it.
Which is far different to XP now. XP is a very stable OS, and while bugs might exist, it isn't nearly what you could call a "buggy OS"
Also keep in mind, Windows 98 was still a DOS-based OS (which is a large part of the reason for its bugginess and instability). Windows XP, built on the quite stable Windows 2000, does not rely on DOS.
2000 was basically built from the ground up, and XP was just an improvement on 2000 in a lot of ways (although the core of the OS is very similar)
so, while the transition from 98 to XP was a good step forward, I don't see Vista bringing anything to the world of OS's that will really advance things.
I agree. Smaller OS's that keep the same functionality, but don't have too much crap, is the best way to do things.LOL trotter, that was great.
BTW, everyone always says that XP got the same heat when it was new, but TBH I don't remember it getting nearly this much, yeah there were criticisms. But sooner than alter people were adopting it because it was a no contest between XP and ME. ON the other hand Vista is a pure lemon and I don't see how more code in the form of service packs will help. Personally I think less code is the solution. Vista has too much crap going on to make it a stable and reliable system.
Give me DirectX 10 for XP x64 edition, and I'll be set.