Metropol

I wouldn't touch it unless it was really necessary. I'm one of the types who subscribes to the philosophy of 'not fixing it unless it's broke'.

After having recently shoved on SP2 to enable me to install Photoshop CS3 (PS install was moaning that you couldn't install unless you had SP2) I would rather gnaw my arm off than go through that again.

I don't know where the odd Mac-bashing post popped in but seriously, don't bash on that you know little about. I personally have all the love for Apple's lovely products but know when they've screwed the pooch, 10.5 is pretty close to it given the track record and 10.4 cannot be the best minor version of OSX yet.

As for SP3 as Vista will still be sluggish and unworkable come SP1, some are still kicking Windows 2000 as they feel XP is sluggish. Has Microsoft been suffering from diminishing returns over time as of Win2000?

Sput wrote:Have you even used a mac?

Yes, my workplace has them, unfortunately.

Sput wrote:It's not stupid to be happy with a new release if it's got good stuff in it.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, I don't notice a lot of stuff in general being added to each new version. Panther was the last "must-have" version, IMO, because it was an exception to the trend of "add borderline nothing and charge more for it."

Sput wrote:It's stupid to be totally ignorant about "the other side" but to criticise them nonetheless.

I'm not totally ignorant about "the other side." I use both and like Windows a lot better.

Nini wrote:Has Microsoft been suffering from diminishing returns over time as of Win2000?

Windows 2000 was the best version they've ever put out, and unfortunately, I think Microsoft went head-over-heels trying to top it, didn't keep it simple, and that's why XP is slow and Vista's even slower.

Well of course they're slow if you use crap hardware.

Even on top-notch hardware, I've noticed a bit of sluggishness in XP and Vista. I'm mulling over going back to 2000.

Really? What do you class as top end?

My top-of-the-line gaming PC, thank you very much.

Yes, but what spec is it? :roll: Sorry for the poor quality emoticon...

I don't know, honestly. I was promised that it was "ultra-fast," but it's only been "pretty-fast."

Well, that'll be the fault of the hardware. If it's from PC World, don't believe them.

Slagathor. wrote:I don't know, honestly. I was promised that it was "ultra-fast," but it's only been "pretty-fast."

Oh well if the greasy palmed nurks in PC World told you that then it must be true!