Re: OT: Vista (< MNCL5 Phonology and Orthography)

> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Bennett
> The only problem I have ever seen with Vista is with the
> 64-bit version
> requiring WHQL drivers (which is sane, if frustrating).
> Everything else
> has been smoother, faster, and more stable than XP on the exact same
> hardware.
>
> I don't know who you're hearing all these horror stories
> from, but it  isn't me.

> Full disclosure: I have a 25 year IT history, using a wide  range of
OSes
> on a wide range of hardware. I'm not an MS fanboy, but I'm not an
> automatic MS basher, either. I weigh my Windows experience fairly in
> relation to my experience with other systems. They have their
strengths
> and their weaknesses, just like every other system.
Well I got you beat by a couple of years as I go back to the Apple II
days (late 70's).  Experience tells me to assume the worst of anything
that comes from M$, and that assumption generally is confirmed over
time, especially with each version usually being worse than the last.
I rank M$ products at the Fisher-Price level (=toys) , and before OS-X
put Mac about the same.  Frankly, in all my years, I haven't seen
anything that really compares to the stability, performance, and
flexibility of most Unix flavors, however the GUI's vary greatly. I
would have no problem if the world just switched to FreeBSD or even
Linux.  And as a bonus, Unix/Linux aren't necessarily bound to a
particular hardware platform.  The only strength I've seen in
Windless, is the original (95-2000) GUI *was* pretty easy to work
with.  The XP GUI is horrible, and even the "classic" view isn't
entirely classic.  I've stuck with 2000 Server for years now.  If not
for needing to run all that Windless-based software, I would have
switched a long time ago.