Re: How workable is Vista?

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:40:23 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jim Granville wrote:
Stef wrote:
In comp.arch.embedded,
The Real Andy <therealandy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
outdated software, then Vista is a no go.


Ok, that's a no go for almost everyone in this group then. ;-)

Yes - With the 'want to run outdated software', changed to 'need to run
outdated software' - version control often removes
option/luxury of 'want' ;)


Exactly. But it's not just engineers. Many businesses run legacy MRP
systems and a change can be extremely expensive. MS used to have an ok
attitude towards backward compatibility. That seems to have noticeably
changed with Vista, to the point where they might discover that they
just shot themselves in the foot.

Yesterday during the dog walk we met a friend who owns a business and
just bought a round of new PCs. His comments about this new stuff
consisted mostly of words like "stinks, pain in the neck, sluggish,
resource hog" and so on.

If you think this is restricted to MS then you are all fools. If I try
and run mac software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif. If I
try and run linux software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif.
Why is MS so different? I deal with all this *** everyday, not just
MS. Why cant the software designed to run on redhat 6 that I currently
have not run on the current version of redhat? IT will if its
upgraded, just like the NT4 software I have.
.