5 ms·

Your post above should be in the dictionary under the title: 'Apologist.' ...there may be further references to Stockholm Syndrome (he doesn't mean to do this

Your post above should be in the dictionary under the title: 'Apologist.' ...there may be further references to Stockholm Syndrome (he doesn't mean to do this to me, that's just his process...) MS has a history of just not 'getting' it with Windows. This is just the next chapter.

001sky 14y ago
MS has a history of just not 'getting' it with Windows. -- Win 95 almost killed AAPL (ie, it was like the 4th version, not the first)
gurkendoktor 14y ago
What did MS not get with Windows 95/2000/XP/7? I don't think the "tick-tock model" of Windows releases is reliable, after such a big and confused change as Windows 8, I find it very likely that Windows 9 will be released to better reviews.
- mark_integerdsv 14y ago
  I see your 95/XP/2000/7 and raise you ME/Vista/8... perhaps I have been a little selective, or perhaps the word 'history' is a iittle vague, I think my point is clear though and IMO well supported... by history.
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    Yes, exactly - that is why the original citation makes sense :) ME & Vista sucked, but the next versions were great. There is no long-term tendency towards suckiness, it's more like a rollercoaster, and that's why waiting for Windows 9 is a solid decision IMHO.
    - mark_integerdsv 14y ago
      Yes, this is the freaking issue! People have to use this abberation formthe next few years! How is the fact that it might get better any form of comfort whatsoever? This is battered woman logic at it's finest... I really cannot understand how you could argue that it's all honky-dory brcause it's been hideous before but it got better, so just knuckle under for now and it should be ok at some uncertain point in the future.
      - gurkendoktor 14y ago
        No, because nobody has to use Windows 8 for the next 8+ years. There is absolutely no obligation to. Just like nobody ever had to use Vista or ME. From the OP- > I’ll stay with Win7 the next few years and hope for better times with Windows 9

001sky 14y ago

MS has a history of just not 'getting' it with Windows. -- Win 95 almost killed AAPL (ie, it was like the 4th version, not the first)

gurkendoktor 14y ago

What did MS not get with Windows 95/2000/XP/7? I don't think the "tick-tock model" of Windows releases is reliable, after such a big and confused change as Windows 8, I find it very likely that Windows 9 will be released to better reviews.

mark_integerdsv 14y ago
I see your 95/XP/2000/7 and raise you ME/Vista/8... perhaps I have been a little selective, or perhaps the word 'history' is a iittle vague, I think my point is clear though and IMO well supported... by history.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  Yes, exactly - that is why the original citation makes sense :) ME & Vista sucked, but the next versions were great. There is no long-term tendency towards suckiness, it's more like a rollercoaster, and that's why waiting for Windows 9 is a solid decision IMHO.
  - mark_integerdsv 14y ago
    Yes, this is the freaking issue! People have to use this abberation formthe next few years! How is the fact that it might get better any form of comfort whatsoever? This is battered woman logic at it's finest... I really cannot understand how you could argue that it's all honky-dory brcause it's been hideous before but it got better, so just knuckle under for now and it should be ok at some uncertain point in the future.
    - gurkendoktor 14y ago
      No, because nobody has to use Windows 8 for the next 8+ years. There is absolutely no obligation to. Just like nobody ever had to use Vista or ME. From the OP- > I’ll stay with Win7 the next few years and hope for better times with Windows 9