If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Vista cannot and will not replace XP. Case Closed
In article ,
Bob I wrote: name ONE OS that runs perfect. VMS. Certainly not when it was released. VMS was always perfect, and merely became more perfect as time passed. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Vista cannot and will not replace XP. Case Closed
Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote: People said the same thing about Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 98 SE, 2000 and ME. That's not the point: XP is what everybody needs and wants The main problem is Vista's (lack of) speed! Why must progress imply a cut to half in performance. REAL progress would be for MS to use their resources and talent to rewrite a lean OS containing what 95% of users really need. That's why businesses all over want to stick to XP. With the new SP3 this is twice as fast as Vista: http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Windo...ost_10997.html so why go through with the hassle. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|