| RolStoppable said: Isn't it tradition that every other Windows underperforms? Version 2, 4, 6 and now 8. Also, my brother said that it won't do well and he likes Apple. |
Windows 1 and 2 did not do well. Windows 3, 3.1, and 3.11 all did well. Windows 95 and 98 did extremely well. Windows ME did poorly. Windows XP did exceptionally well. Windows Vista did not do well. And Windows 7 has done well.
The versions are Windows 1 = v1. Windows 2 = v2. Windows 3-3.11 = v3. Windows 95 - Windows ME = v4. Windows 2000 & XP = v5. Windows Vista, 7, and 8 = v6.
There is no tradition.
Windows ME was a bad product. It was the merging of NT technology and Windows 9x. It didn't work particularly well, especially if you upgraded over a previous version. Windows Vista was no where near as bad as it was made out to be. While there were some minor improvements in performance and memory usage with Windows 7, Windows Vista functionally was an extremely competitant OS. In another world, Windows 7 likely would have been a service pack to Windows Vista, but Microsoft had to separate itself from the bad press.
I agree with both the criticisms and the response to those criticisms regarding Windows 8. Windows 8 has a few user challenges, but in time they are things people can overcome. The problem is that Microsoft could have done a better job of using consumer feedback.
Windows 8, like Windows Vista is a serviceable operating system. The difference is that Windows 8 requires a significant amount of relearning to use.
