Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint  P_G, when isn't a new software package "a glorified version" of its predecessor? Inspiron makes my point when he tells us of the huge retraining required to change working environments. I expect that if you looked at the source code (!), you wouldn't call it "glorified". According to the primer I posted, it's quite an evolution. Who knows. If they've cleaned up some of the major Vista gripes, it should be pretty good. |
Well, that was my point: it is a glorified update of Vista. And by glorified, I mean they're marketing it to the working class demographic that knows, maybe, 10-20% of how the OS works. So, in order to convince *them* that it's worth a purchase (since chances are that that said population had crap luck with Vista and either went back to XP or switched to Apple), they have to glorify Win 7, and make it sound, seem, and look like Windows has flogged themselves enough for how they brought about the introduction of Vista. What I was trying to convey, was that Windows did the same thing with OS's 97-XP. Each upgrade was an improvement over the former OS. The difference between Gates' generation and the sans-Gates generation of Windows, is that they effed up with the introduction of Vista. They're hoping to recover with a "new and improved" Win 7, and doing their damndest to disassociate it with Vista (although impossible, since Win 7 is the *upgrade* of Vista).
I was convinced with Windows 97-XP. I'm not convinced with Vista-Win.7