Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
to develop the OS in the right direction.
Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
than three times more popular than Vista (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
).
I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
and animations that eat up your system resources.
Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
Vista is inferior to XP.