Barry Watzman wrote:
> I do not agree with your views on the wisdom of waiting for "SP1"
>
> There was nothing "Horrible" about Vista (SP0 ... original).

Piece of crap that should have never gone to market. Period. Name me one
single corp that is running it internally. The networking and playing
well with others is atrocious. Besides a resource intensive cartoon GUI,
it shows me no improvement on what was already offered by XP.
Vista did not enhance my experience, but it sure made me a lot of money
downgrading it.

>
> There was nothing "Horrible" about XP (SP0 ... original).

This is correct for the most part.

>
> Sure, there were a few issues; there will ALWAYS be issues.
>
> Sure, there WAS a service pack; there will almost always be service
> packs (although I'm not sure that there was a service pack for ME).
>
> Windows 7 is really not much more than a service pack of Vista. For
> that reason, I expect far less issues with Win 7 than there have been
> with other OS'; and I don't necessarily accept the common (but not
> necessarily correct) Wisdom that one should wait for SP1. Although I
> can accept the wisdom to wait for a few weeks to a month or two for web
> reports of experiences .... there is certainly nothing wrong with
> letting other people be the "guinea pigs". But in the past few
> operating systems ... indeed I'd go back all the way to 95 ... the
> changes from SP0 to SP1 have not been SO great that waiting was really
> justified, for most people (ME was just plain bad, period; and was never
> fixed, the SP for ME was XP).

ME was serviceable if you knew what to turn off. This was another Vista
moment. The so called enhancements from WIN95 weren't enough to make it
the next sliced white bread.
>
> Also, we have a tendency to judge OS' not in terms of the environments
> in which they were developed and released, but in terms of today's
> environment, or, looking at older discussions, the environment(s) (still
> subsequent to release) in which they were discussed. That is wrong and
> is not fair or appropriate. If one operated in that manner, we would
> all wait for the "next" version ... forever.

Development is development. Technology inherently begs for the next
version. The problem is, a lot of of what is advertised as an
enhancement or improvement is just the same old **** in a different
wrapper. That's just the way it is.

That said, I love XP for what is, and what it has become, a sturdy
workhorse. W2K as well. It works plain and simple.

Vista has shown me what bloat is. I don't need most of what it contains
and the extra resources needed to run it could be used for more
productive applications.

Linux has shown me both innovation on the tiny and useful scale and what
is possible when innovation isn't strictly precipitated buy making a buck.

Perhaps, just maybe W7 get's it right. Where the trade off between
resources and utility make it addition to the toolshed, otherwise I'll
stick with my old shovel.
>
>
> Larry wrote:
>> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h24d45$ipe$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Some of us ... like probably most of the computer users in the world
>>> ... actually LIKE Windows and have as much distaste for Linux as you
>>> do for Windows.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't distaste Windows. I've been using Micro$oft's products since
>> DOS 1.0 was released on 8086 hardware! I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this
>> message because it's convenient and familiar with Xnews, a very old
>> usenet client.
>>
>> I'm sorry you got that impression that my post placing the 1GB limit
>> on Micro$oft was simply reporting all the thousands of articles
>> written on the subject.
>>
>> One of my friends wants to install Win7 on his box. I've asked him to
>> wait until 2010 for SP2 or 3 until a significant number of major bugs
>> users find are ironed out. He failed to listen and upgraded to Vista
>> 1.0 on day one, paying dearly for his transgression.....(c;]
>>
>> I missed several horrible "upgrades" like ME, Vista, some NT flavors
>> here. I've never been much of a "retail beta tester" for any
>> software.....
>>
>> WinXPSP3 is a very stable product. I just wish its company wasn't so
>> hell bent on destroying it.
>>
>>
>>