Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd May 2010 21:33 UTC
Permalink for comment 426123
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
That's because each time you remove some old annoyances, there's someone to put some new ones. Maybe in order to motivate people to buy future updates ?
Eg : Win95 was somewhat stable and efficient. It could have remained light-weight. Then Microsoft integrated IE everywhere to justify its infamous presence, and it was the end. W2K had almost no built-in annoyances, it worked just perfectly well for most things. Then XP was made cartoonish, heavy as hell (including the task manager, which was just plain stupid), and full of stupid popups. And after getting somewhat usable finally, the Windows GUI was completely redone in Vista for no special reason, so that it becomes unreadable and unintuitive again...
Edited 2010-05-23 06:10 UTC