Nov, 1985: Windows 1.0
Dec, 1987: Windows 2.0
May, 1990: Windows 3.0
Oct, 1992: Windows 3.1
Aug, 1995: Windows 95
Jun, 1998: Windows 98
Sep, 2000: Windows ME
Oct, 2001: Windows XP
Nov, 2006: Windows Vista
Oct, 2009: Windows 7
With all these comparisons, you can tell that Windows have come a long way, for the past 24 years.
For details, visit this link, via BBC
2 Comments
Has it really come that far?
I never bothered to get Vista as XP worked fine.
Now, looking at the 'What's New' in Vista, I don't really see anything compelling at all!
Sure, new look, but all this transparency does is slow down the machine. New toolbar - big deal. Really, there is no 'must-have' feature at all.
Seems like no reason to upgrade apart from the fact that you are forced to by the collusion of hardware & software vendors. My next computer will undoubtedly have Windows 7, but only because it has to.
@Anon: My computer is still runing XP SP3 - to make use of the multi-core processing power.
One thing about XP is that, half year down the road, the OS will start to slow down - this isn't quite evident in Vista, which I believe it'll be even better with Win 7.
A test by BBC even showed that Netbook running Win7 (with 2GB RAM) is faster than XP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8317005.stm
This is really something to consider, as well.
Again, as I mentioned in another post, I'll wait till the second release of the bug fix patches by Microsoft, before I'll do the upgrade.
Post a Comment