|
| 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
January 28th 08, 03:13 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
|
|||
|
|||
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
January 28th 08, 03:14 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 | |
|
|
Linear Mode
