I read somewhere that the term "Surrogate" within Vista has to do with their COM emulation layer. You probably have some sort of application that's heavily reliant on COM, and hasn't been "updated" to be Vista compatible. That's why there has been such a big panic over software compatibility from ISV over the past few months. A lot of legacy game middlewares in particular that rely on DirectX are COM based.
Except Win2K.
Well... other than the "over 63,000 potential known defects" from that leaked memo that Mary Foley reported on which got her black-listed for a couple years.
But yeah.. I'd agree that it was definitely the least painful Windows to migrate to.
I've seen this before, over and over, and it gets me so irritated (nothing personal though, I swear) that I just have to speak out.
Vista is indeed unstable. It was, as I feared it would be, pushed out long before it was market-ready. But guess what?
THAT HAPPENED WITH EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF WINDOWS SINCE 98!!!!!
I agree with ya. This was the same calibre of complaint that went around when XP was introduced.
Early adopters have always been the market sounding board and true beta test group for their OS's. They measure how much a consumer is willing to tolerate, and test true configuration issues from the production builds.
Realistically, they probably do believe that the most lucrative market they'll reach is with an OS somewhere in the middle of XP and Vista. Vista will *probably* become that OS very subtly over the course of the next couple years through patches and silent upgrades. How quickly we get there will really depend on how much they want to spend on end-user support, maintaining ideas that were poorly executed and what they believe an acceptable level of ROI is.
Then another OS will be released that's worse, and the acceptable "middle" (by most) will be where Vista is today. The cycle begins again.
It's like a nerd version of the Lion King....
Except Win2K.
Well... other than the "over 63,000 potential known defects" from that leaked memo that Mary Foley reported on which got her black-listed for a couple years.
But yeah.. I'd agree that it was definitely the least painful Windows to migrate to.
I've seen this before, over and over, and it gets me so irritated (nothing personal though, I swear) that I just have to speak out.
Vista is indeed unstable. It was, as I feared it would be, pushed out long before it was market-ready. But guess what?
THAT HAPPENED WITH EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF WINDOWS SINCE 98!!!!!
I agree with ya. This was the same calibre of complaint that went around when XP was introduced.
Early adopters have always been the market sounding board and true beta test group for their OS's. They measure how much a consumer is willing to tolerate, and test true configuration issues from the production builds.
Realistically, they probably do believe that the most lucrative market they'll reach is with an OS somewhere in the middle of XP and Vista. Vista will *probably* become that OS very subtly over the course of the next couple years through patches and silent upgrades. How quickly we get there will really depend on how much they want to spend on end-user support, maintaining ideas that were poorly executed and what they believe an acceptable level of ROI is.
Then another OS will be released that's worse, and the acceptable "middle" (by most) will be where Vista is today. The cycle begins again.
It's like a nerd version of the Lion King....