Re: So I've made the "switch"

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The Windows Vista Kernel is nothing like the Millennium Kernel of course.
However the volume of complaints from the IT community about Vista compared
to Millennium have been about the same. Once Millennium was end of life from
Microsoft, even folks within Microsoft called it a mistake. So in that sense
I think the Millennium Second Edition name works. I have yet to see any
large scale deployment of Vista in any corporate environment of customers we
serve, and that is a lot of customers. Microsoft is rushing to complete
Vista SP1 in order to encourage more corporate deployments, but a large part
of the IT community still remains weary. Other than some security
enhancements, there are no compelling reasons to shift to Vista for the
majority of the corporate world. Meanwhile SP3 for Windows XP is supposed to
be released early next year, so the pressure is on Microsoft to continue to
support XP. Very few security applications list Vista as an approved OS (I
think ONSSI is the only one I've seen that lists it), so moving to Vista
hasn't been necessary for us just yet either. As long as Microsoft continues
to sell XP, there will be buyers, at least for the short run. Windows Vista
needs an image overhaul along with more debugging.


"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bnMUi.152061$Da.26648@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Roland Moore wrote:
> > I think Microsoft should rename Windows Vista to Windows Millennium, 2nd
> > edition. Vista has proved so far to be a worthy successor to the sorry
> > Millennium legacy.
>
>
> I disagree.  Vista is NOTHING like Millenium.  It isn't even based on
> the same OS.