[Kosh]

Well Windows Vista comes in at number 10

Windows Vista
Any operating system that provokes a campaign for its predecessor's reintroduction deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that quietly has a downgrade-to- previous-edition option introduced for PC makers deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology.

Windows Vista conforms to all of the above. Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm

[BloodEagle]

Well Windows Vista comes in at number 10

*snip*

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm

Biased.

[spartan_0214]

Well Windows Vista comes in at number 10

*snip*

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm

Biased.

\Smack

True.

[karajorma]

Given that the number one is actually from the UK you're obviously talking out of your arse

[TrashMan]

Vista has some nice features, but it's nothing more then a XP with a plastic surgery upgrade. Expensive plastic surgery. It's a resource hog with all the pretties, but only 2-3 really notable and useful additions.

Guess what - I'm not interested in the pretties. I'm interested in what an OS should do. That's why I'm still using XP.
Heck you can already download small programs than make XP look visually similar to vista.

[Kosh]

No, it was a completely rebuilt OS, not like XP (which actually was windows 2000 with plastic surgery upgrade). Troubles with it include an obscene DRM scheme, incompatibilities, and so forth.

[Wobble73]

No, it was a completely rebuilt OS, not like XP (which actually was windows 2000 with plastic surgery upgrade). Troubles with it include an obscene DRM scheme, incompatibilities, and so forth.

Hmm, yeah, isn't Vista just ME with a plastic surgery upgrade??? 

[TrashMan]

I talked to a official tester for Microsoft, and this guy is a real computer guru (In fact, I get all my PC components from him. All were top-notch products and work perfectly). He is basicly very dissapointed in Vista and sez it has a LOT of bugs. He was also a tester for XP and sez XP is better.

[Admiral_Stones]

ZOMFG OLOLOL look at page 2 of the records!

[achtung]

I talked to a official tester for Microsoft, and this guy is a real computer guru (In fact, I get all my PC components from him. All were top-notch products and work perfectly). He is basicly very dissapointed in Vista and sez it has a LOT of bugs. He was also a tester for XP and sez XP is better.

He sez a lot of things doesn't he?

[Scuddie]

I haven't sezzed anything in a good long time.

But the author put about as much effort into his article as I put into my reply.

EDIT:  One day I will learn to correctly put my thoughts into words.

[Kosh]

I talked to a official tester for Microsoft, and this guy is a real computer guru (In fact, I get all my PC components from him. All were top-notch products and work perfectly). He is basicly very dissapointed in Vista and sez it has a LOT of bugs. He was also a tester for XP and sez XP is better.

Because it was a completely re-written OS, XP was just windows 2000 with a face-lift.

[achtung]

Let's all switch to Amiga!

[Hazaanko]

I'm still wondering whether to go Vista or XP on my new Intel Mac.... considering they say that Vista actually works really well on a Mac (how ironic is that...)  But I'm guessing XP will still be a lot speedier until Microsoft gets its act together and fixes Vista.

[Dark RevenantX]

Why not do both?  You probably have enough HDD space for a grand total of three operating systems.

[jr2]

You should be able to use one partition as an extended partition, and put two partitions within it, and have Vista prompt to boot XP or Vista on startup, right?

[karajorma]

Let's all switch to Amiga!

QFT!

It has always amazed me that AmigaOS failed to take off despite being light years ahead of everything else on the market.

[Kosh]

Same could be said for the Amiga computer back in the day. Arstechnica has a good series about the history of the amiga

[Nuke]

I talked to a official tester for Microsoft, and this guy is a real computer guru (In fact, I get all my PC components from him. All were top-notch products and work perfectly). He is basicly very dissapointed in Vista and sez it has a LOT of bugs. He was also a tester for XP and sez XP is better.

Because it was a completely re-written OS, XP was just windows 2000 with a face-lift.

i very much doubt its a complete rewrite. software companies recycle their code bases, . most of what they wrote from scratch was the outward appearance. and not the underlying system. what they should have done is wrote a new shell for the server line, stripped out most of the server features and called it vista. the server line is performance and uptime oriented os without of sparklies.

thats exactly what they did in xp pro 64. took server, and made it better for the computer user. and guess what im installing when vista kicks the bucket.

[jr2]

AFAIK, none of those OSes were re-writes.  All are NT-based.  (blech, NT... what an odd-ball name to give your product.  A cookie to whoever can tell me what "NT" stands for.)  Also AFAIK, Vista was supposed to be a re-write, but actually that's been pushed back to the next OS release.