From: /m 

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:19:51 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>"Antti Kurenniemi"  wrote
in message
>news:44cbc7c6{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> I don't know the actual numbers, but I think it's reasonable to assume
>that
>> Vista is more complex than NT4 or W2k. The amount of hardware available
>> today alone is probably 1000 times the number it was in 2000. Plus,
>software
>> development (like anything very large) is not linear; double the people
>> working on it will not get double the results because of all overhead
>> involved.
>>
>> Damnit, you're making me sound like I'm pro-MS, stop it already! 
>
>Antti,
>
>Here's the point, all excuses aside, an upgrade is an upgrade from the users
>point of view.
>
>So if they can't match the NT3.5 to W2K advancement because the software has
>become too difficult to upgrade even with 4x the number of people, then they
>need to take a different approach, either a fresh start or forget about
>making one OS that is all things to all people.
>
>In the past 6 years, Linux has certainly made 6 years worth of progress. One
>look at suse 10.1 tells me that.

Oddly, I've been tracking SuSe (i.e., downloading, installing and using
each version) since around version 8.0, and I think that SuSe stumbled a
bit with 10.1.  Hopefully they will regain their momentum with 10.2...

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5