Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2007 21:39 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Permalink for comment 251429
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-12
Is Vista so bad that having it on the same machine as XP draws unfavorable comparisons? Is not the better solution to Dual boot or use some Visualization for moving its customers to the new platform. I cannot believe pressure from OEM's on Microsoft has caused this move. I'd say it is current hardware limitations of the low end machines being comparable with those of a few years ago, making Vista look a poor mans XP.