David B. wrote:
> "XP is twice as fast as Vista" This is a blanket statement which for the
> most part is untrue on current hardware.
>
This would be your "Blanket Statement":
http://news.cnet.com/Windows-XP-outs...3-6220201.html
Vista, both with and without SP1, performed
notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test,
taking over 80 seconds to complete the test,
compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35
seconds.
I have no customer out there with Vista that is not
disappointed with it. They say it is slow and
not compatible with a lot of their [non Microsoft]
applications.
"Current Hardware" ? Why would you want to upgrade
to a new system when your old system will do the
same thing under an older OS and do it faster
with almost no program incompatibilities.
I do not see why Microsoft would get their nose
out of joint here. Their customers generally
like XP and are will to pay the extra ~$90.00
to get it. Essentially, Microsoft get paid twice
for the OS when customers request the downgrade
option. And, Microsoft needs all the sales
they can get at the moments.
We will all be hurt if Microsoft goes under.
-T