Comparing Windows versions: apples to oranges to grapefruit

One of the arguments I hear in defense of Windows Vista’s bloated footprint is that it’s simply a repeat of the situation faced by users when Windows XP first shipped. Back then, the logic goes, users were complaining about Windows XP’s CPU and memory requirements, with many resisting the upgrade push because they simply didn’t want to make the necessary hardware commitment.

This argument would make perfect sense if Vista were merely another in a long line of similarly architected OS. However, the truth is that “Windows 6.0” is really only the second mainstream iteration of the current Windows platform (Windows 2000 doesn’t count since it was never a mainstream product). As such, there simply is no real precedent from which to draw such conclusions. Windows XP users typically upgraded from Windows 98 or Me. And while there was significant pain associated with that migration, it had more to due with the move to a new kernel and driver architecture (i.e. from extended DOS to NT) than anything else.

As those of us who remember can attest, the jump from DOS/Windows to Windows XP was a quantum leap forward in Microsoft’s OS architecture. For the first time, users could run multiple applications reliably, with real preemptive multitasking and memory protection. And while it took time for new drivers to appear, when they did they helped take previously flaky technologies, like Plug & Play, to new heights of usability.

The introduction of Windows XP was a watershed moment for the PC industry, one that firmly cemented Microsoft’s role as the pace-setter for the desktop.  Contrast this with Vista, which is basically Windows XP with more “stuff” heaped on top, and you begin to see why so many users are balking at the upgrade message. There’s simply not enough “meat” to justify the pain involved.

With Windows XP, users of 98 and Me knew what they were getting: A real OS that would finally take advantage of their (at the time) powerful 32-bit machines. Vista boasts no such compelling shift in power or reliability. It’s basically “XP Plus,” not so much an apples-to-oranges comparison as it is oranges-to-grapefruit: fatter, less tasty and generally tough to swallow.