First we should be aware that Windows XP has been out for 6 years. Being a OS that’s 6 years old it’s got to be perfect, right? The Perfection is not only in terms of the OS itself, but also in terms of the supporting software. As a platform software compatibility and performance are two most important factors for an OS. Which OS can do better than a 6-year-old OS that’s been on more than 90% of world’s personal computer? None.
Second, do not forget the fact when XP was out, most people complain about XP being an utterly incompatible system. It was after XP SP1 that XP finally became a truly reliable and compatible mainstream OS. Vista, "on the same hand", is in similar position. There is no SP1 for vista yet, so demanding Vista "SP0" to be a more perfect or even better OS than XP SP2 is, in my honest opinion, thinking without the brain.
Third, Vista uses the same NT architecture as XP, while 98 uses 9x architecture. In the XP case there had been an architecture upgrade, whereas in the Vista case there has been not. Since there was no upgrade on architecture, the overall experience did not improve dramatically enough to make people say "Wow, Vista rocks". Vista doesn’t rock; Aero interface doesn’t look appealing to everyone either; it is no wonder to see why people aren’t excited about this new OS.
Fourth, Vista introduced several improvements that does not offer a ground-breaking enhancement to user experience. Readyboost does too little to make it worth it. Superfetch strains the hard drive whenever you free the system memory. Dx10 demands a monster graphics card, only to make it run slowly. The searching indexing service is lowly-efficient and pretty much useless. The new network center is complicated to understand and requires quite a bit of learning to master. And the UAC, f*** the UAC. Better security? How about XP with a nice little Kaspersky? In short, Vista has given us a bunch crap features and none essential upgrade. Considering people’s ability to scratch things only on the surface, calling Vista names is quite within understanding…
Fifth, people are intolerant. They need an OS that not only works out of the box but also requires zero tweaking and optimization. Disabling a few key services makes Vista work much better. A 2G memory is essential too. Bigger partition and faster hard drive are also needed. But even all of these requirements are met; people will still not be satisfied. Because no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, Vista will NOT be as fast as XP on the same machine. Did I mention certain incompatibility issues? People are not problem solvers; people are not pattern identifiers; people expect a system to be working for them when they have paid for it or downloaded it for a long time. Therefore, when a system isn’t working for them, they retreat, they switch it back.
Quoting Apple’s Ad: "Do not ask for what Vista can do for you, ask what you can buy for Vista." Yes, apple cannot be more correct. Using Vista requires one to have money (to buy hardware), patience (the speed issue), time and energy (the compatibility issue), and in the end, intelligence (to understand solve all the problems).
In the end, it is not features or performance or stability that makes the little portion of us use Windows Vista. It is curiosity. The curious, childish mind needs to know what has been changed in Microsoft’s latest OS. It is the insatiable need to know that drives me, drives us.
Feeling much better,
BTW I just lost to a better player in the game COH:OP. The match was a close one but he is just more skilled in every way and I have no means to defeat him, albeit I had done my best. Damn it! See? This is what happens when a game gets too competitive. Playing to win will not work every time.