With due respect, your all entirely wrong. Vista is the first MS OS to go through the new MS secure development lifecycle which is one reason alone not to use xp sp2 aymore.
As too, when patched it has the same technology as windows server 2008 with its kernel so memory management and process scheduling is improved.
In the over 50 million lines of code in Vista is countless other enhancements...service hardening, superfecth and on and on.
The concern that US department has over cost is valid cos Vista costs more. Its a far better product and I think its worth it.
The compatability concern is valid too but the extent to which applications wont work on Vista is highly dependant on what applications you use. Its certainly not the case that everything breaks. And whats more, 99% of packaged software that did have problems has been patched now. For most people its not a problem that ever occurs anymore.
MacOS is too limited by the hardware you can run and BSD/Linux is a nightmare for general desktop use. Yes dos/win95 did suck, but MS has a very good knack for eventually releasing products that stand on their own two feet and Vista is the best desktop operating system ever made. My partner has a Mac and I think the soon to be released Mac OS is good but the problem is you simply cant run the hardware like you can on Vista. Case in point : No 8800 GTX on Mac cos Apple hasnt written a supporting EFI bootsrap for it yet.
I'm a balanced and reasoned person so present me a proper technical argument as to why any other desktop OS is better and I will fairly consider it. In the decades Ive been in ICT I have tried many many desktop OS's and Vista beats all Ive tried.
|