Windows XP vs Vista, 98 and 2000

Who cares, right? I know I don’t. I remember when Windows XP first came out, I don’t go back the CP/M days, but I did start on DOS 3.3 and can very well remember the grumblings about the latest version of Windows, no matter what the version. Of course, in the good old days we didn’t have this big blogosphere that magnifies everything, it was just news sources and some of the first websites. Heck, I can remember being excited about Windows 95, let alone XP. Anyway, the same thing has happened every time, only this time it’s magnified and bigger and it is Windows Vista that is being beat down, not Windows XP. Truth be told, I don’t think I have even read over a handful or articles or blog posts that compared the two, while I may have written a couple, but nothing like some of the ones you see bashing Windows Vista.

This is why I really liked Ed Bott’s latest post, Remembering Windows XP’s early days, in which he compares when Windows XP first came out to when Windows Vista first came out.

Those of us who are willing to supplement our memories with some help from Google can attest that XP was not welcomed with open arms. In fact, it was slammed by magazines like InfoWorld, where P. J. Connolly and the very same Randall C. Kennedy published this not-so-glowing review in the October 26, 2001 issue:

Hopeless optimism must be a fundamental part of human nature, because we want to believe that new operating systems truly represent an improvement on their predecessors. It’s easy to point to certain features in a new OS as examples of progress, but end-users often find that a new OS performs like molasses compared to the version they were using. As a result, CTOs wanting to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS may find that new hardware investments are necessary — and expensive — requirements.

Unfortunately, Microsoft’s Windows XP appears to be maintaining that tradition …

Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS. …

Sound familiar? Source: Remembering Windows XP’s early days

Yes it does Ed, yes it does. Should we care? Sure. I want the latest, greatest, fastest, etc just like everyone else, but I also like having a PC that does the same thing for me every time I boot it up. I install, work on, repair, hundreds of computers a year, so for me, XP can get old because it’s now the same old problems every time, lets see some more Vista and some new problems to mix it up. lol Check out his post and the hundreds of comments that are already there for some good cheap laughs.

What I would like to know is, how many Windows haters post comments on blogs and forums using a Windows machine while pretending to be on Linux. Come on, you know it happens a lot….