Apples, oranges, Vista and XP
Reg Developer picks up on Microsoft’s defence[*] of features causing confusion for Windows Vista users. Of interest to me is this, from Microsoft’s document:
We’ve heard some of you say that Windows Vista runs slower than Windows XP on a given PC. So what’s really happening here? First, we need to avoid comparing apples to oranges - Windows Vista is doing a lot more than Windows XP, and it requires resources to conduct these tasks.
That’s an interesting comparison. I’ve got a lot of sympathy for Microsoft’s broad stance: if you’re running something that does a lot more then it’s going to take up more resources; it would be silly to expect otherwise. But if Vista and XP are apples and oranges, and if Microsoft want all XP users to move to Vista, then they do rather sound like a very peculiar grocer. All the grocers I know understand they need to sell both apples and oranges, not move their customers onto just one of these.
I think what we’re really comparing is apples and genetically modified apples.
[*] Link down at time of writing, but we’re promised it will be back soon.
