|
Re: Differences between Vista and XP "Not Me" <cargod01@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:OaQ98n0qHHA.4464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> They put XP in the food processor, chopped it up & vacuum packed it.
> I wish they had at least tried to get some of the pieces back in the right
> place.
> Having the gas & brake pedals reversed & the ignition switch in the trunk
> is a pain!
>
> "John Waller" <johnw@REMOVETHISpinnacleweb.com.au> wrote in message
> news:O$0%23q6zqHHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <snip>
>> Sure Vista has a legacy and it's part of the Windows family i.e. it's not
>> a completely new way of doing things.
>> But much of the kernel has not been simply revised or cosmetically
>> retouched - they've started again from scratch e.g. TCP/IP stack, audio
>> stack, Aero (love it or loathe it) etc
>
>
>
All the changes, including widespread renaming of "default" folders and
apps, rearranging of menus with no rhyme or reason, and apparently for no
real purpose, confusing new graphic interface, are all necessary to make
Vista --look-- sufficiently different from previous versions of Windows.
This
only serves one purpose; to create the illusion that Vista is a new OS.
Consider, no one will ever offer an explanation as to WHY all these
system-wide changes were implemented, much less needed. This is just another
example of the Marketing Dept. at work.
--
=======================================
"Make it just like a Mac."
- Bill Gates
======================================= |