|reply to BlitzenZeus |
Re: Windows 8's usage uptake falls further behind Vista's
said by BlitzenZeus:Microsoft could have delayed Vista ten years and the 3rd parties would have waited eleven. Vista prepared us for Windows 7. By the time the OS (edit: Windows 7) came out most hardware and software vendors had come in line. I'd have no problem upgrading the lone machine I have running Vista to WIN8 if I thought the machine would benefit. It is barely running Vista adequately. I really don't have a problem with Windows 8. I never see Metro and I have an operating system that has had some significant improvements over the earlier version. Businesses on the other hand are not going to adopt Windows 8, until Microsoft changes it. The consumers I have dealt with (that is a fairly small number close to but not over two figures) pretty much hate it, until you install something like Classicshell and let them deal with Metro in their free time, if at all. I've ordered close to $30,000 worth of computers since early December and not one of them was ordered with Windows 8 on it with one exception... I bought my daughter a $500 laptop at Best Buy and it came with it.
Vista wasn't a bad os, and uac was a good idea for the average user who wasn't a complete moron, however most 3rd party software wasn't correctly written to use user account when unnecessarily needing admin privileges for bullcrap reasons when Vista was released. Even to this day some software is still poorly written, and while it's not a system utility, otherwise installer wants admin privileges for everyday use due to piss poor programming. Vista also wasn't accepting of antique computers either due mostly lack of driver support from 3rd parties which Microsoft had no control of, but could have delayed the release of the os to reduce this problem.
I wouldn't replace Vista with Win 8 either.