|
i remember using dos 3.0 then 6.1. then came windows 3.11 which seemed to be just a fancy way to do what i was already doing. windows 95 was when it was clear this was an easier way to do the daily stuf on the computer. 98 was just a shinier 95 imo but it did make some improvements. then windows 2000 which seemed closer to nt then to the 98 platform but at least it was stable unlike 95 or 98. step in xp with the functionality and stability i´ve required and i´m pretty happy. my ex´s comp is running vista along with several friends´ and it seems to have nothing more over xp at least for my needs. the thing that´s concerning me is the system requirements. my laptop is fine for me (2Ghz, 512Mb ram, 32Mb video) which apparently is only *just* enough for the basic vista.
i remember a friend followed vista while it was still longhorn which at the start of development had a series of substantial improvements and he said that he watched microsoft slowly strip any improvements out of it during development and by the time it was released as vista it waas just a new front for xp that needlessly required so much more hardware.
__________________
mother nature made the aeroplane, and the submarine sandwich, with the steady hands and dead eye of a remarkable sculptor.
she shed her mountain turning training wheels, for the convenience of the moving sidewalk, that delivers the magnetic monkey children through the mouth of impossible calendar clock, into the devil's manhole cauldron.
physics of a bicycle, isn't it remarkable?
|