As a Windows user and as an Administrator I feel that all versions of Windows have had their issues.
Windows 95: Can we forget how many different osr packs they released (3 or 4 maybe) and USB support was iffy at best. Not all that bad though as a good starting point,
Windows 98: I can still remember the whole BSOD issue when Bill Gates was talking about it. Out of all of the non-NT kernel based Microsoft O/S's this one was good. It had issues as well but they were bearable. Plug and play worked most of the time and USB worked.
Windows ME: Why bother talking about this........
Windows 2000: Now a bunch of people I have talked to over the years swore that this OS was the way to go. Ran well, stable and had a new NT based kernel. USB worked and it supported direct x (unlike NT). This laid the blocks for XP and Server 2k3!
Windows XP: Probably one of the most stable OS's released in a while. Now, mind you that the RTM had some issues like drivers and memory management. Some of those where corrected with SP1 and more where corrected with SP2. Drivers and patches took a while to catch up from windows 2k and 98 but it happened. Server 2k3 ties into XP due to sharing of the kernel. Both o/s's are getting long in the tooth though....
Now, my feelings about Vista. MS has tried to take a whole bunch of different technologies and tie them together all at once. Memory management, security and other things are greatly improved since XP. XP's caching function is improved greatly by the implantation of supercache and readyboost. Some of the sluggish response the OS is giving is due to the fact that supercache is learning what applications you are using and making them available to load quicker. Readyboost will let you use a USB thumb drive as a ram disk of sorts. It works pretty damn good I might add!!
The file copy issues (esp. network copying issues) are being addressed and fixed with SP1 and I am sure as other issues pop up they will be dealt with.
Vista is not all that bad, people that complain or bitch about the OS probably base allot of that on hear say or and not firsthand experience. People that are running it probably don't have their installations optimized as well either. Now, I know that some folks are going to say that the default installation should be optimized out of the box but that’s not going to be the case. Sometimes vendors and software companies err on the side of stability rather than performance.
For example, if you’re running vista with sata drives, do you know that write caching is disabled by default. If you turn it on, you will gain a bit of performance. There are many things you do tweak vista to help but the main thing is to run it on a machine that is not ancient. Yes, Vista likes ram and faster processors but all OS’s are going to behave like that. XP, Linux, FreeBSD and such will scream with a faster rig just like Vista will.
I administer 12 Windows 2000 Servers, 6 Windows 2k3 server SAN units and 130 assets running either XP or 2k. I also deal with Linux and UNIX boxes and have had the chance to beta test server 2008. I also run Windows Vista Ultimate 64 and Linux and Windows XP on my machines here at my home. I like vista the most with Linux a close Second.
I think that windows 7 will be just as rocky at the start as any other MS OS and will get all sorts of complaints just like vista has. The bottom line is that people hate change…..
Just my 2 cents here on this topic….
|