The part that didn't make sense was how he said that he is *resistant to
change* but will not buy a new OS unless there are major changes.
Heck, Windows ME should have always been classified as a beta and never a
final OS. To me, Vista feels like it has less bugs in it than Windows ME
did when it was out on shelves. It was horrible. It was a driver nightmare
and when a program would crash, it would never work again. (In example,
when Paint crashed, it never opened again without the same error reappearing
immediately when you would go to open it.) Also, the degradation of
performance was very severe. You could have backported Spider Solitaire
(Which by the way I know for a fact works on Win98), Pinball, the few new
sounds, the new wallpapers and icons, changed the color scheme slightly,
changed the boot screen, and installed WMP7 on Windows 98 and have a much
more stable version of Windows ME. Now I do think the 'Vista being the
biggest change since Win95' is a little out there. If that really were the
case, you'd think the way that you would do a huge chunk of the tasks would
be drastically changed, but when you think about it, most tasks you do in
Vista are generally the same. The start menu is still there and still very
much so represents the one in XP with a few changes. The taskbar is still
there. The system tray is still there. The menus are still there. The
close, maximize, and minimize buttons are still there and the same symbols
and location. Scrolling works the same way it always has. I think Vista's
going to be more of a Windows 98 to XP type deal more than a Windows 3.1 to
Windows 95 deal. In other words, it's something worth upgrading for those
of you who are going to use the new features or live for the eye candy but
for those that aren't, it's not really all that necessary.