Re: How workable is Vista?
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:02:34 -0500
Didi wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
Paul Keinanen wrote:Like any :-).
The Microsoft 9x family was quite useless for any serious
applications,
Like what?
Linuxopathia: cursing Bill Gates and M$ at all occasions, and preaching the greatness of Linux :)
If Linux is so good, and free, and Windows is so bad, and it is 2008 already, then why the vast majority of developers and users prefer M$? :)
Come on, you will not call this joke an OS?
I consider Win95 to be the excellent work for what it was intended to. M$ did a significant leap forward while maintaining the 100% compatibility with DOS/Win3.x legacy and keeping the performance.
XP is a lot stabler and might be called "a vastly bloated
and inefficient - but sort of working - OS", I suppose.
The NT/Win2k/XP was a path of small useful improvements. Unfortunately, Vista seems to be away from this path.
Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How workable is Vista?
- From: David Brown
- Re: How workable is Vista?
- From: Didi
- Re: How workable is Vista?
- References:
- How workable is Vista?
- From: rickman
- Re: How workable is Vista?
- From: Paul Keinanen
- Re: How workable is Vista?
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- Re: How workable is Vista?
- From: Didi
- How workable is Vista?
- Prev by Date: Re: NAND flash misery
- Next by Date: Re: How workable is Vista?
- Previous by thread: Re: How workable is Vista?
- Next by thread: Re: How workable is Vista?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
