Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 10th Oct 2001 16:20 UTC
Permalink for comment
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 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



XP doesn't have the vision-problem that Linux has, but it's irrelevant because 1. it brings very little improvement to Windows 2000 2. companies are in save mode. Believe me, I know! Resistence to upgrade is great. 3. Microsoft's newest licensing scheme has alienated many CIOs 4. XP is a resource hog. Upgrading to XP in most cases means upgrading your hardware, and that just enforces point 2. Still, by the end of this year there will be more copies of Windows XP sold than Linux desktops (not servers) are in use now.