Astyanax0, Gideon has somewhat of a good background in the IT world, you may also have the same. Not speaking for Gideon but I think he was comparing the fact they were/are OS's developed by Microsoft that had/have questionable qualities.
Exactly.
I was comparing them from a marketing standpoint, not from a design standpoint. Of COURSE, two operating systems made seven years apart are going to be very different.
But what am I seeing that leads to the comparison?
--Both were rushed to the market because of consumer demand. ME to meet the timetable to take advantage of the Y2k promo, and Vista because of advancements in the Mac and Linux communities as well as 64 bit architecture.
--Both enjoyed immense immediate success as they were marketed as the next big thing.
--Both were brought out to replace operating systems that had become stable and reliable. 98 didn't look good in initial release, but by the time 98SE was released, it was a pretty decent O/S.
--Both saw a large number of customers "roll back" to their old operating systems because there were too many difficulties with the new O/S.
If anything, Vista is WORSE than ME. At least with ME, most of the games that ran on 95/98 would run on ME. Not true with Vista.
From a marketing standpoint, what is happening with Vista IS analogous to what happened with ME. And with Microsoft planning its next OS release in 2009, I would be hard pressed to believe they're going to spend a lot of time fixing the problems with Vista (again, another similarity. With ME, XP was already on the drawing board, so they didn't bother to fix it.)
