Windows Vista vs Windows 95
I was reading this post over at GeekZone and one interesting statement he made goes like this:
Running Windows 3.11 was just phenomonal on this, insanely quick.
In contrast, the Vista machine was just poke-slow in everything it did, took 3 minutes to start up, took 24 seconds to load Word, and usually taking about double the time to run the modern equivalents of anything else.. The only advantage it had was pure clock cycles when running things like Flash.
Vista is a true step backwards, just like running Windows95 on an 8MB 486SX
Wow, that was a long-ago jurassic comparison. The article made me wonder; how about if Vista was built to run on a Pentium 166 computer? The computer industry from video card manufacturers, memory vendors, hard disks, and other hardware industries would be poor dirt and Microsoft is the only company profiting from all these. I couldn’t imagine the kind of evil perception they would be making in the world. Regardless if their software requires memory hogging, hardware expensive box; the entire I.T. industry economy benefits going down to the smallest paid employee of the company.
Tags: Microsoft, Vista, WindowsRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Microsoft, Windows Vista
3 opinions for Windows Vista vs Windows 95
michael
Dec 18, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Everytime I see an advert for Vista or windows live, its saying something about uploading and editing pictures to send over the web.
Its not as if the usb port was released with Vista, or you couldn’t plug a camera into Windows 95 and run applications that do exactly the same functions as on Vista. What digs with that?! I hate all this bull about Vista - its not unix, so its crap. I wish microsoft put that slogan on the box, everyone would still buy the damb thing preinstalled, I don’t think that would do anything to profits.
Jeff
Jan 1, 2008 at 2:31 am
I think people just like to complain about vista, but honestly, it is more convienient than all the other OS-Systems. Most of the problems due to Vista are being solved quite fast and it’s only in it’s infant stages. This has ALWAYS happened whenever microsoft makes a new OS. XP had a million and one problems as well, but after a while the number of problems is too miniscule to care. Don’t diss a system inless you have it. If it runs slow, upgrade your hardware, no reason in having ancient parts.
Bill
Jan 15, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Actually Win 95 on a 486SX with 8 Meg was pretty fast in the day. 13 years later, we’re almost to total integration /cue terminator reference
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: