"rickman" <gnuarm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

... My point
is that there is little about the release of Vista that is different
from the release of XP. XP went through all the same reluctant
acceptance by the commercial community. That is their nature. If it
ain't broke, don't fix it. There are a lot of costs associated with
adopting a new OS into a corporate environment. Heck, I remember when
Win98 came out and the IT guys recommended that everyone stick with
Win95! Win95 was the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen!!! Moving
to Win98 is the single best upgrade I've ever seen other than the
switch from the 95 lineage to the NT lineage.

Well said!

I remember when the critics were telling us to hate XP and that it would
break all our applications. (Even though there is virtually nothing that
runs under 2000 and won't run under XP.) Before that, I remember when they
were telling us to hate Windows 95 because it would break all our DOS
applications. To hate VM/CMS because it would break our OS/360
applications. And so on.

To a certain mindset, computers were perfect 5 years ago and we don't need
no steenkin' progress!

One thing nobody has said enough about is that the embedded systems industry
is burdened by development tools that *insist* on not following best
practices that have been standard since the 1980s, such as distinguishing
user from system file space, not making arbitrary assumptions about disk
drive letters, etc.

See for example:
(And responding to one of the comments on that page, I *did* contact the
tool vendor and they just said I should be happy with the clumsy