Comparing Vista to ME is like a bologna-eating contest. Neither tastes particularly good and we know where both are going to end up.
Windows ME had no product activation, was completely buggy, and had very little to offer in terms of new features. System Restore, a new interface similar to Windows 2000, and Automatic Update were about it. It was a fair operating system, though, as it took as long to shut down as it did to boot up. Since Microsoft decided to remove non-PnP drivers from the installation CD, it had compatibility issues with software, was tricky to install, and tough to get legacy hardware running. Because of this, Windows ME made the number 4 spot on PC World’s “25 Worst Tech Products of All Times” list, a distinction no one would want.
It was six months ago that we were anxiously awaiting the introduction of Microsoft’s new operating system, Vista. My love of computing started when XP was introduced so Vista’s introduction carried me back to the excitement of those days. If only it could have been the same.
We interrupt this blog…
Hi, I’m Dave Methvin, Chief Technology Officer at PC Pitstop. Our CEO, Rob Cheng, is recovering from an accident; we all wish him well on a quick recovery. I’ll be filling in on the Pit Blog until he’s back up to speed.
Back in his June entry, Rob mentioned the outrageously high resource requirements for Microsoft’s successor to Windows XP, named Vista. At the time, Microsoft was recommending 1GB of system memory and 256MB of dedicated video memory. Not long after that, though, the information at Microsoft’s Vista site changed again.
Windows XP Market Share by PC Type