4 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
4.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 7, 2008, 04:17
4.
Re: No subject Mar 7, 2008, 04:17
Mar 7, 2008, 04:17
 
The article comes up with the 2 year figure based upon the adoption of XP after Windows 98, but I think that's a flawed analogy as XP was a genuinely superior OS to Windows 98 in many ways (technologically, usability, performance, etc)

Vista OTOH, is simply not superior to XP by any metric IMHO. It certainly isn't faster, it doesn't allow me to do anything that isn't possible in XP, and the UI (while pretty) is more of a hindrance than a help.

PZ
------------
Reading: Nothing yet, planning on reading Isaac Asimov's "The Robots of Dawn" shortly
PZ
------------
3.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 7, 2008, 03:07
3.
Re: No subject Mar 7, 2008, 03:07
Mar 7, 2008, 03:07
 
Hell, I only switched to XP last year. The author of that article is crazy if they think XP has a practical lifespan of only 2-3 more years.

Gee, and I thought I was late making the switch when I finally moved to XP in '05 after I couldn't get San Andreas running proper under 98se.

2.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 7, 2008, 02:26
2.
Re: No subject Mar 7, 2008, 02:26
Mar 7, 2008, 02:26
 
Just like what Blue said.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
1.
 
No subject
Mar 7, 2008, 01:55
1.
No subject Mar 7, 2008, 01:55
Mar 7, 2008, 01:55
 
Hell, I only switched to XP last year. The author of that article is crazy if they think XP has a practical lifespan of only 2-3 more years.

4 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older