[citation][nom]franky4ro[/nom]is it me or win 8 will be the next milennium and vista )[/citation]
Hey, Vista wasn't as bad as Millennium and is a lot better than it first was. XP also sucked when it first came out and wasn't too great until the second service pack. Vista also just needed until it's second service pack before it didn't suck much anymore.
[citation][nom]mhch[/nom]I'm more than worried by these succeeding Windows version, XP, the crappy Vista, 7, now a really worrysome 8, and more importantly all the significant user problems and painful transitions that come with them. I'm still using XP with delight.May be application companies have their word to say, by not necessarily following what MicroSoft dictates.[/citation]
Companies don't skip OS updates just because they suck at the time. Companies skip OS updates because they see no reason to upgrade what is still working just fine for them, especially with how expensive upgrading an entire infrastructure is. Companies are still often using XP, Server 2003, and even Win 2000 on many computers for this reason. If fixing something is as expensive as it is in the business world, why fix what isn't broken? That is why they don't upgrade.
Besides that, Windows 8's only serious problem is Metro, which can easily be disabled or worked around if you can't learn to live with it (it really isn't too bad once you give it a chance, but I'd probably disable it after playing with it for a while anyway). Vista had several problems including poor performance, poor driver support, poor software compatibility, poor stability, and more. Windows Vista still has fairly poor performance, but it's better and it's other problems improved a lot. Windows 8 is not slow (it's the fastest Windows since XP, if not even faster than XP), has great driver support (it works with almost all Windows Vista and 7 drivers), has great software compatibility, and is stable.
XP originally had all of the same problems that Vista had (except fore the performance thing; it wasn't that much slower than it's predecessors) too. Come service pack 2, XP became far better. XP went on to become the most popular consumer version of Windows because it became great. Vista didn't become great, but it's decent now. It's kinda like how IE 9 is a decent browser, but it's previous versions all suck (previous versions of Vista all sucked, that's the analogy). IE 9 still isn't great and there are better options both older and newer, but it is decent. Vista still isn't great and it has both superior predecessors (XP) and superior successors (7), but it is decent.
Also, a lot of the perceived Vista is crap came from it being installed on machines that had less than 2GB of RAM (not a rare thing back in 2006 and 2007). XP's memory needs weren't as bad for it's time because it only needed 256MB to run properly (hardly worse than Windows 2000's needs and was a common minimum amount of RAM back then). However, many machines of the time from Windows Vista's upbringing had only 256MB to 1GB of memory and Vista doesn't do well with so little RAM.