Hacker News Reader

Comment by azakai | Hacker News Reader

What a ridiculous article. So there was negativity about XP that turned out to be wrong. What about the negativity about Vista that turned out to be right?

And how about considering each case on its own merits? Even aside from the product itself which changes, the competitive landscape is nowhere near what it was in XP or Vista days. A failure (Vista) back then was a minor inconvenience. A failure today would be different.

View on HN

Most of the negativity about Vista was related to changes that were a good thing in the long run, but didn't have 3rd party support (updated drivers) out of the gate. SP1 fixed some problems, but in my opinion the bigger reason for SP1 being reliable was that the ecosystem had gotten its act together.

Windows 8 might not have a lot of native metro apps in their store yet, but at least everything works properly. Fewer companies have the option of screwing it up out of laziness.

A lot of the Metro apps are a bit broken (even the Microsoft-provided ones) - a big problem is them trying to go to websites that have moved since whenever they were released.

In fairness the negativity of Vista was also wrong.

Agreed, having used Vista from release to Win 7 release, I never seemed to see the stability issues that so many seemed to be reporting. It made me wonder if people were just trying to work with ridiculously outdated hardware and software.

The negativity about vista was largely technical (it was unstable), and was adressed in SP1.

We can also look at gnome 2, gnome 3, and unity for other examples of horrific updates that went smoothly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com