Did XP have birthing problems too?

A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
to now have.
I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?

Bubba

What problems are you referring to? In comparison,
Microsoft has received far less calls for technical support
for Vista than Windows XP did when it was launched.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows System & Performance

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Bubbler" <> wrote in message news:...
A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
to now have.
I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?

Bubba

"Bubbler" <> wrote in message
news:...
>A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
>to now have.
> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?

Are you kidding? The exact same things being said about Vista today were
said about XP 7 years ago. "It's too big, too bloated, to slow, needs too
much hardware for decent performance, there are no drivers for my
(printer/video card/network card, etc.), it's just Windows 2000 with a new
theme, they moved things around for no apparent reason, the Activation
requirement will kill MS, MS days are numbered, now is Linux's chance, 2002
will be the year of Linux".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I guarantee you the very same things will be said when the next version of
Windows hits the streets. Of course, that will be 3 years from now. In
that time, Vista will undergo the same magical transformation that XP went
thru, and Vista will be "fast, compatible, lean and mean" compared to the
next version.

And so it goes.

In article <>, says...
> A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
> to now have.
> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?

XP was based on Win2k (internally, Win2K is Windows 5.0, XP is 5.1).
There were some issues.

Vista is a bigger change (I forget what it is based on, Server 2003??),
and lots of security enhancements that are causing driver and program
issues as they must be more carefully coded.

I haven't looked, but if you do a search on groups.google.com (Usenet
history), I'll bet you'll find many of the same people saying Vista is
crap to stay away from XP and stick with NT/2K/98!!!

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

"Bubbler" <> wrote in message
news:...
>A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
>to now have.
> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?
>
> Bubba
>

WinXP had more people with problems than Vista does. Like Vista, most of
those were just learning curve problems as people learned a new system and
problems caused by third-party programs that weren't ready for WinXP despite
the long beta.

--
Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM
www.fjsmjs.com
Do not reply with email

Same thing but with a little difference. XP got much more complaints then today's Vista when it was introduced as Gold

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Bubbler" <> wrote in message news:...
>A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
> to now have.
> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?
>
> Bubba
>
>

"Bubbler" <> wrote in message
news:...
> A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
> to now have.
> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?
>
> Bubba
>
>

I have been on Usenet for about 8-9 years or so...
and XP was received with mostly highly positive ratings.
Even more so that Win2k which got a few complaints about lack of drivers.
As a matter of fact I was surprised actually as to how few problems XP had
and how positive the ratings were.
Because of all the positive reviews I moved to XP sooner that I had expected
to...
but of course I still use Win2k.

Vista has *definately* gotten considerably more complaints than XP ever
did...
not to say that Vista's problems won't eventually be ironed out.


Here is a page I've dug out from the archives describing XP's initial
"gotchas"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,68...1/article.html


The article is fairly typical for it's time (circa 2001)

As you can see, the problems are fairly minimal as compared to today's
complicated world <G>

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:16:58 -0500, "Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM"
<> wrote:

>"Bubbler" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>>A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
>>to now have.
>> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?
>>
>> Bubba
>>
>
>WinXP had more people with problems than Vista does. Like Vista, most of
>those were just learning curve problems as people learned a new system and
>problems caused by third-party programs that weren't ready for WinXP despite
>the long beta.

Does this lame line of crap get drilled into MVP's?

There is little new about the current version of Windows. It is mostly
the same tired, crash prone, bloated, badly written, way worse
implemented pile of junk to EVER infest any personal computer. Windows
has been that way from the beginning and little has changed.

Have I learned Windows?

Well I've been using it since Windows version 2.

I know for a fact is sucks, always has sucked, always will suck. Hell,
need to know why?

Simple. It's from Microsoft. All Microsoft software sucks.

"Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM" <> wrote in message
news:33AAFD23-7858-4E75-AF41-...
> "Bubbler" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
>>to now have.
>> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?
>>
>> Bubba
>>
>
> WinXP had more people with problems than Vista does. Like Vista, most of
> those were just learning curve problems as people learned a new system and
> problems caused by third-party programs that weren't ready for WinXP
> despite the long beta.

That's all nonsense. When I first used XP it was different from 98 and odd
at first but I quickly saw that it was a superior OS. I see no improvement
or advantage with Vista over XP after using it for 5 months. Perhaps XP
wasn't that great until SP2 which only means you should wait a couple of
years for Vista SP2 and then judge. Why use it now?


>
> --
> Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM
> www.fjsmjs.com
> Do not reply with email

"Peter Foldes" <> wrote in message
news:...
Same thing but with a little difference. XP got much more complaints then
today's Vista when it was introduced as Gold

It did not. You either have a bad memory old boy or some ulterior motive.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Bubbler" <> wrote in message
news:...
>A friend claims that XP had lots of initial problems just as Vista appears
> to now have.
> I don't recall that as being so. Any comparison?
>
> Bubba
>
>